Prayers - 
[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Virtual participation in proceedings commenced (Order, 4 June).
[NB: [V] denotes a Member participating virtually.]

Oral
Answers to
Questions

Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office

The Secretary of State was asked—

Deportation: Human Rights Compliance

Richard Burgon: What recent steps he has taken with the Home Secretary to ensure UK Government compliance with international human rights law in the handling of deportation cases.

Nigel Adams: Deportations, removals and returns are a Home Office lead. The Home Office is responsible for ensuring that action is in compliance with the relevant legal frameworks. The Foreign Secretary and the Home Office meet regularly to discuss international business, and Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office Ministers periodically discuss FCDO support for return flights to specific countries with Home Office colleagues, most recently the resumption of flights to Nigeria and Ghana following a pause due to the covid-19 pandemic. The UK’s international legal obligations, including under international human rights law, underpin all those exchanges.

Richard Burgon: The Julian Assange case is just one of many recent cases that have led to greater public discussion of the issue of extradition between the US and the UK in recent years. There are concerns across the House about our country’s extradition treaty with the USA. One is that the US can request extradition in circumstances Britain cannot, something the Prime Minister labelled “unbalanced” earlier this year. Another is that provisions within the treaty are not properly upheld—for example, the treaty bans extradition for political offences. What is the Minister doing to ensure that the ban on extradition for political offences is always upheld?

Nigel Adams: As the hon. Member may already know, changes were made under the previous Government to make the system more balanced. I can tell him that the FCDO is committed to upholding the full range of  rights set out in the universal declaration of human rights and in international human rights treaties to which we are a state party.

Mahboob Ahmad Khan

Margaret Ferrier: Whether the Government have made representations to the Government of Pakistan on the killing of Mr Mahboob Ahmad Khan in Peshawar on 8 November 2020; and if he will make a statement.

Nigel Adams: We strongly condemn the murder of Mr Mahboob Khan, another recent and apparently religiously motivated killing of an Ahmadi Muslim in Pakistan. On 8 November, my ministerial colleague Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon, the Minister for South Asia and the Commonwealth, publicly condemned the murder of Mr Khan. On 16 November, he raised concerns about killings of Ahmadi Muslims in Pakistan, including Mr Khan’s murder, with Pakistan’s human rights Minister.

Margaret Ferrier: I thank the Minister for his response. Given that four Ahmadi Muslims have been murdered on the grounds of faith in the past four months, the latest being 31-year-old Dr Tahir Ahmad murdered at home in Punjab just last Friday, what further representations can his Department make to the Government of Pakistan on ending their state-sponsored persecution of Ahmadi Muslims in Pakistan, which is rooted in federal laws that explicitly target Ahmadi Muslims?

Nigel Adams: I thank the hon. Lady for her question. She may be aware that we had a very robust Adjournment debate highlighting this issue last night. We remain deeply concerned by reports of discrimination and violence against any religious communities in Pakistan, including the Ahmadiyya Muslim community. We raise regularly at senior level with Pakistan our concerns about the mistreatment of Ahmadiyyas and other religious communities. On 3 November, FCDO officials in Islamabad met representatives of the Ahmadiyya community in Rabwah to engage with their concerns, as well as raising the matter with Pakistani authorities.

UK-US Co-operation

Neil Gray: What recent discussions he has had with President-elect Joe Biden’s transition team on future co-operation between the UK and the US.

Dominic Raab: We send our warmest congratulations to President-elect Joe Biden and Vice President-elect Kamala Harris on winning the election. Whether it is on trade, security or defence, we do more together than any other two countries and we see huge opportunities in the months ahead.

Neil Gray: As President-elect Biden embarks on building his internationally focused team, including Antony Blinken as Secretary of State who said that Joe Biden would bring aid back to the centre of foreign policy,  does the Foreign Secretary regret that the UK Government’s disgraceful plans to change the law to cut aid spending below 0.7% not only sends the wrong message to the rest of the world, but gets the relationship with the new Administration they did not want to see off to a bad start?

Dominic Raab: Actually, we consistently showed that we are a leading, if not one of the leading countries, on aid. That will continue. We also—this will matter to the United States—indicated the increase in defence spending, which shows what a dependable ally we are. All the soundings that we have had—that I have had—with the incoming leadership show that there are huge opportunities on climate change and covid to strengthen the relationship even further.

Lisa Nandy: I echo the Secretary of State’s congratulations to President Biden and, in particular, to the Vice President-elect on this historic election. However, the spectacle of democracy under attack in the United States has sent shockwaves around the globe. Even after the transition announcement yesterday, the President has continued to say that he will
“never concede to fake ballots”.
Ron Klain says that the President has “set back” the democratic norms of the United States. Does the Foreign Secretary now regret emboldening those who attack democracy by refusing to assert that all votes should be counted and that processes need to play out, or will he stand with me and the incoming White House chief of staff in defence of free and fair elections?

Dominic Raab: First, I warmly join the hon. Lady in paying tribute to and welcoming the historic election of Vice President-elect Kamala Harris. Frankly, the stuff that the hon. Lady said about emboldening critics of the US elections could not be further from the truth. What we have said consistently—[Interruption.] She might want to listen to the answer to her question. What we have said consistently is that the US has the checks and balances in place to produce a definitive result. It has. We warmly welcome the new Administration. We look forward to working with them.

Lisa Nandy: Global alliances are based on shared values: democracy, the rule of law and human rights. Human rights will be a key pillar for the Biden Administration. They rightly recognise that Yemen is the world’s worst humanitarian catastrophe, sustained by US and UK support. The war has gone on for more than five years, with a dangerous rocket attack in Jeddah just yesterday. Does the Secretary of State agree with the incoming US Secretary of State, the National Security Adviser and the ambassador to the UN that it is time to end participation in, or any form of support for, the disastrous Saudi-led campaign? Will he now commit to playing the UK’s part by ending arms sales to Saudi Arabia?

Dominic Raab: I certainly agree with the hon. Lady that we have to pursue every effort to get peace in Yemen, both on the humanitarian side and on the political track. That is why we have been fully supportive of the UN special envoy, Martin Griffiths. I have been out to Saudi to encourage, promote and cajole the  Saudis into doing the right thing. Of course, the Houthis need to move. Actually, the most important thing is a concerted regional push for a political end to this wretched conflict.

Hong Kong Opposition Lawmakers

Geraint Davies: What steps the Government plan to take in response to the disqualification of four pro-independence opposition lawmakers in Hong Kong.

Dominic Raab: Beijing’s imposition of new rules to disqualify elected legislators constitutes a clear breach of the UK-China joint declaration. This is only the third time we have judged a breach, and the second in six months. China has once again broken its promises and undermined Hong Kong’s high degree of autonomy.

Geraint Davies: As the Foreign Secretary said, the Chinese Government have breached the Sino-British joint declaration twice in the past six months, so when will he implement the Magnitsky sanctions against the Chief Executive of Hong Kong, Carrie Lam? What steps is he taking to tighten capital flows into China via Hong Kong from the City of London?

Dominic Raab: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his interest. He will know that we have already made a new offer to British nationals overseas, suspended our extradition treaty with Hong Kong and extended our arms embargo on mainland China to Hong Kong. On the Magnitsky sanctions, this is not just something that we can decide at our fiat. We need the evidence to back it up. We are looking at and assessing that, working with our international partners. On 18 November, I led and issued a statement with our Five Eyes Foreign Ministers condemning the latest China move in relation to legislators. That was hot on the heels in October of 39 countries joining the UK in the UN Third Committee with a statement on Hong Kong as well as Xinjiang.

Climate Change: International Co-operation

Simon Fell: What recent progress the Government have made through international co-operation on tackling climate change.

James Cleverly: As the host of COP26 and the president of the G7 next year, securing greater global ambition on climate change is a diplomatic priority for this Government. Ministerial colleagues in the FCDO and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary regularly raise this subject, and he has done so, including with Japan and South Korea earlier this year. This strategy is working. China has pledged to become a carbon-neutral country by 2060 and Japan and South Korea have committed to become net zero by 2050. On 7 November, the Prime Minister appointed my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Anne-Marie Trevelyan) as the international champion on adaptation and resilience for COP26.

Simon Fell: My constituents in Barrow and Furness have welcomed the Government’s focus on renewable energy, but it is clear that a global approach is required to deal with this crisis. As such, can my right hon. Friend reassure the House that the Department is working flat out on COP26 and the climate ambition summit to make it a success?

James Cleverly: My hon. Friend is absolutely right that the answer to this lies in global co-operation. The United Kingdom is leading from the front, and we are pressing foreign Governments for greater action and higher commitments at the climate ambition summit on 12 December. Our posts across the globe have engaged with host Governments, businesses and civil society on climate change issues ahead of COP26, and we will continue to do so in the run-up to the climate ambition summit this December.

Alyn Smith: Climate change is going to drive the future crisis that humanity is facing. Parts of the world will get wetter and parts drier, with all the world more climatically unstable, population growth and resource scarcity. Climate change is going to be at the heart of every crisis that we are going to face.
The UK is undertaking the integrated review of foreign and defence policy right now. I will be grateful for an assurance from the Minister that climate change will be high on the agenda of that review, and that he will take good note of the Scottish National party’s suggestions, which we submitted to the review in good faith. We all need to work together on this, because climate change is a crisis facing humanity as a whole.

James Cleverly: The hon. Member is right to highlight the fact that climate change is going to be an important factor in the foreign policy of all countries around the world. We recognise that in terms of pressure on food production and resources, the potential implications and the conflicts that may come about because of that. That is why climate change and our response to it, development and diplomacy will all go hand in hand through the integrated review.

Alyn Smith: I am grateful to the Minister for that reassurance. I suggest that he has a read of the SNP submission to the integrated review. There are some very good ideas in there, not least to maintain development at the heart of climate mitigation and to fund it properly. If I were a Minister in a Government who stood on a manifesto in December to maintain 0.7%, I would be considering my position were that to be walked back upon. Is he considering his?

James Cleverly: I am very proud of the fact that the United Kingdom is and will remain one of the most generous aid donors in the world. We have focused relentlessly on ensuring that the work of the United Kingdom Government across all Departments focuses on addressing the poorest in the world, as well as the implications of climate change.

ASEAN Countries: UK Relations

Antony Higginbotham: What diplomatic steps he is taking to strengthen UK relations with ASEAN countries.

Nigel Adams: We are very much strengthening our relations with the 10 countries of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations. Last month, I had a meeting with the ASEAN Secretary-General. I have also met all ASEAN ambassadors to London. The Foreign Secretary visited Vietnam in September and met ASEAN Foreign Ministers. Last week, I was in the Philippines and met Secretary of Foreign Affairs Locsin, among others.

Antony Higginbotham: I welcome the Minister’s meeting in the Philippines. He knows that our relationship with the Philippines is not just on security and defence, but extends to the 30,000 healthcare workers in this country who came from the Philippines. May I press him on the conversations that he has had with the Government in Manila about those 30,000 workers and how we can strengthen the healthcare relationship?

Nigel Adams: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise that. While I was in Manila last week, I met a range of Cabinet Secretaries, including the Health Secretary and the Foreign Minister, as I said, and the British Red Cross. As my hon. Friend knows, there is currently a ban on Filipino nurses leaving the country. They are fantastic, committed health workers and we are very grateful to the 30,000 of them in the national health service. I am pleased to report that we managed to secure important progress in that regard. Following the discussions that I had with the Health Secretary, the Philippines President has confirmed that he will lift the ban, allowing our NHS to recruit these highly skilled and excellent health service workers.

Thomas Tugendhat: I very much welcome my hon. Friend’s efforts with ASEAN and his emphasis on the Indo-Pacific. He will no doubt have seen the fantastic Policy Exchange report by my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho), who has been instrumental in emphasising some of these points. Does he agree that this tilt towards the Asia-Pacific is fundamental to defending democracies in the region, to ensuring that British interests are valued and to respecting the individual rights of countries that for too long have been pressed by China to come under a different orbit?

Nigel Adams: I thank the Chairman of the Select Committee for his question. He is absolutely right, and I also applaud the work of my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey in this regard. Our tilt towards the Indo-Pacific region as part of the integrated review is testament to how much we value that part of the world. There are a number of issues that we will raise with China. We are concerned in particular about issues around the South China sea, and these are conversations that we have regularly with China. I made our legal position on that very clear here at the Dispatch Box a couple of months ago. Our support in that area has been widely supported by our ASEAN friends.

Hungary: Same-sex Couple Adoption

Christine Jardine: What representations he has made to the Government of Hungary on proposals to ban adoption for same-sex couples in that country.

Wendy Morton: The UK is committed to the principle of non-discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation and/or gender identity. If it is passed, the legislation will reserve adoption for married couples, which in Hungary means heterosexual couples. While there would be an avenue for exceptions, adoption would be very difficult for same-sex couples in the future, as well as for single people. Our embassy in Budapest is closely monitoring the discussions of the proposal in the Hungarian Parliament, and will be discussing it with Hungarian officials and civil society actors.

Christine Jardine: This unacceptable development in Hungary is a very worrying one, and is part of a wider movement to define families as a union between a male and female husband and wife and children. Does the Minister agree that we have to take every possible opportunity to impress upon the Hungarian Government how unacceptable this is to so many people in our communities here in the United Kingdom?

Wendy Morton: We are completely opposed to all forms of discrimination and we continue our work to uphold the rights and freedoms of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people in all circumstances. We are really concerned that the amendment of Hungary’s Registry Act, which was passed by the Hungarian Parliament in May, will have an adverse impact on the rights of transgender people, and I raised our concerns about the amendment to the Act with the Hungarian Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade in April. I can assure the hon. Lady that our embassy in Budapest takes all appropriate opportunities to discuss the rights of transgender people with senior government officials and civil society.

Ethiopia

Laurence Robertson: What recent assessment he has made of the security situation in Ethiopia.

Stuart McDonald: What recent assessment he has made of the (a) political and (b) security situation in the Tigray region of Ethiopia.

Dominic Raab: We are very concerned about the conflict in the Tigray region of Ethiopia, in terms of both the humanitarian impact and the risk of spill-over and spread through the region.

Laurence Robertson: Having chaired the all-party parliamentary group for Ethiopia and Djibouti for a long while, I have seen the relative peace that Ethiopia has lived in since 1987, and the last thing it needs at the moment, following the locust problem and covid, is this situation. Does the Foreign Secretary therefore agree that the best way forward, and the only realistic way forward, is to find a peaceful solution to the problems? Will he also do everything he can to ensure that aid continues to get to the Tigray people who need it?

Dominic Raab: I thank my hon. Friend and pay tribute to the work that he has done in this regard. I share his concern. I spoke to Prime Minister Abiy on 10 November. We have made it clear that there needs to be a de-escalation of violence, humanitarian access and protection of civilians. Of course, there are also all sorts of regional implications, which is why I have also spoken to the Prime Minister of Sudan and the Foreign Ministers of Egypt and South Africa. This will require not only regional but international efforts to secure peace and protect the humanitarian plight there.

Stuart McDonald: As the Foreign Secretary said, this conflict has implications for the whole region, including Somalia, with Ethiopian troops being pulled out of that country to be re-deployed to Tigray. Given reports that President Trump also intends to move troops out of Somalia, and given the threatening presence there of al-Shabaab and Islamic State, what discussions has the Foreign Secretary had with international partners about ensuring that Tigray does not end up helping to destabilise Somalia, too?

Dominic Raab: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. As my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson) made clear, Ethiopia has been a relative success story lately, but there is a real danger for the people of Ethiopia and he has highlighted the risks of spillover to Sudan, Somalia and Eritrea, which will be very damaging not only for people in the region, but for wider equities. As I say, I have spoken to regional leaders. I will speak to the Deputy Prime Minister of Ethiopia soon. Of course, we will be engaging with the Americans. I was in Berlin talking with the E3 and our European colleagues. We have expressed our concern, and we are doing everything we can to bring peace and a de-escalation of the conflict.

Stephen Doughty: The war and famine in Ethiopia in the 1980s are seared into the memories of the British people and the world, and yet again we are on the brink of another tragedy for the people of that wonderful country: hundreds of civilians hacked to death, tens of thousands of refugees, hundreds of thousands cut off from assistance, women and children caught in the violence between rebels and a Government now threatening to shell a city. So can the Foreign Secretary say why it has taken until today for the United Nations Security Council to meet on this? What more are we doing to secure humanitarian corridors and access for independent human rights monitors? Does he not agree that this is another reason why it would be the wrong time to cut our 0.7% commitment to humanitarian assistance?

Dominic Raab: I share the hon. Gentleman’s horror at some of the reports of the civilian casualties. We take this incredibly seriously, energetically and actively at the United Nations. Let me reassure him that UK funding is already helping those in urgent need of assistance. In Ethiopia specifically, the UK funds the World Food Programme, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, UNICEF and the UN Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs.

Yemen

Adam Holloway: What recent assessment the Government have made of the (a) political and (b) humanitarian situation in Yemen.

James Cleverly: The humanitarian situation in Yemen is dire. As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary warned in September, Yemen has never looked more likely to slide into famine than it does now. Almost 16 million people—53% of the population—are currently unable to afford food. In response, the UK is rapidly disbursing the £200 million-worth of aid commitment this year. We fully support UN special envoy Martin Griffiths, who is seeking the parties’ agreement to proposals for a nationwide ceasefire and formal talks.

Adam Holloway: Would my right hon. Friend give us some indication of the progress of the UN efforts?

James Cleverly: We strongly support the UN’s efforts and we regularly engage with all parties that have an interest in Yemen. On 18 October, I spoke to the spokesman Mohammed Abdul-Salam about the peace process and the Safer oil tanker; on 6 October, I spoke to the Yemen Foreign Minister about the progress; and on 17 September the Foreign Secretary co-hosted a P5+ ministerial meeting to encourage all parties to engage fully with the proposals that the UN has put forward.

Saudi Arabia: Human Rights Defenders

Alex Cunningham: What discussions he had with the Government of Saudi Arabia at the G20 on human rights defenders in that country.

James Cleverly: Our strong relationship with Saudi Arabia allows us to raise human rights concerns through a range of ministerial and diplomatic channels. Ahead of the G20 leaders’ summit, I raised human rights concerns with the Saudi ambassador, including the continued detention of at least five women human rights defenders. The UK also signed the UN Human Rights Council joint statement in September calling for the release of all political detainees. We will continue to raise human rights concerns with the Saudi authorities.

Alex Cunningham: Women in Saudi Arabia now have the right to drive, but some of those who fought for that basic equality remain behind bars. The UK is, as the Minister suggests, Saudi Arabia’s closest European ally, but does he understand why the detention of women human rights defenders by the Saudi Arabian authorities is an important test of our Government’s commitment to defending human rights? Will he call on them to release these women and all political prisoners immediately?

James Cleverly: We welcome the improved situation for women in Saudi and encourage the Saudis to continue steps in that direction. As I have already said, we engage on this specific issue at both ministerial and official level and will continue to urge the Saudis to go further.

Wayne David: The Minister knows full well that the human rights situation in Saudi Arabia is terrible, and many people believe it is getting worse. Now that the G20 summit has been held, what precisely do the Government intend to do to put pressure on the Government of Saudi Arabia to release human rights  activists, including women’s rights activists who are being held for fighting for freedoms that we in this country take for granted?

James Cleverly: I spoke to the Saudi ambassador about this very issue on 16 November. As I say, it is important that we recognise when progress has been made. Saudi is embarking on a reform programme and we are seeking to ensure that that goes further and faster, but as I said in response to the previous question, we do engage at ministerial level and at official level to encourage the release of women’s human rights defenders.

Covid-19 Vaccines

Angela Eagle: What steps the Government are taking to help ensure equitable access to covid-19 vaccines for people living in the global south.

Sara Britcliffe: What diplomatic steps the Government are taking to support the development of a covid-19 vaccine (a) in the UK and (b) throughout the world.

Wendy Morton: The UK is committed to rapid, equitable access to safe and effective vaccines through multilateral collaboration. We strongly support the COVAX advance market commitment, which is the international initiative to support global equitable access. The UK is the largest bilateral donor to the AMC, having committed up to £548 million to help provide vaccines for up to 92 developing countries. The UK also committed £71 million in non-official development assistance to participate in the COVAX facility for self-financing countries, in order to secure options to vaccines for UK domestic use.

Angela Eagle: In a pandemic we are only as strong as our weakest link. Is the Minister convinced that, even though we are one of the largest donors, we are doing enough to ensure that developing nations have the infrastructure they need to organise a mass roll-out of the vaccine?

Wendy Morton: A pandemic response is absolutely what we need to tackle this virus, and that requires global collaboration. The UK strongly supports multilateral approaches so that we can meet both domestic and global needs, and that work goes alongside UK deals with individual vaccine developers. I am sure that, like me, the hon. Lady will welcome AstraZeneca’s commitment to non-profitable access during the pandemic and the fact that AstraZeneca estimates that up to 3 billion doses will be available globally by 2021.

Sara Britcliffe: My question follows on from that asked by the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle). What specific steps is my hon. Friend the Minister taking to ensure that the UK is at the forefront of providing vaccines to vulnerable countries around the world?

Wendy Morton: I know how interested so many Members are in the access to and distribution of these incredibly important vaccines as part of our covid-19 response.   Our £250 million of funding for the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations is helping to develop vaccine candidates that can be scaled up and accessible for developing countries. Our commitment of up to £548 million to the COVAX AMC will contribute to the target of supplying 1 billion doses for 92 developing countries in 2021 and vaccinations for up to 500 million people. We have also worked with the World Bank to secure up to $12 billion in financing to support developing countries’ access to covid-19 vaccines, treatments and tests.

Myanmar: ICJ Case

Rushanara Ali: What assessment he has made of the implications for his policies of Canada and the Netherlands formally joining the Gambia in the International Court of Justice case on the genocide of Rohingya people by the Myanmar Government.

Nigel Adams: The UK Government have been clear about their political support for the ICJ process, and we continue to urge Myanmar to comply with the provisional measures ruling. We are aware of the intention of the Netherlands and Canada to intervene and understand that they will take a final decision once the case progresses. We are monitoring the case closely and continue to consider whether UK intervention would add value to its merits.

Rushanara Ali: I am grateful to the Minister for that answer. The failure to secure justice and hold the Burmese Government and the military in particular to account sends a dangerous message to other Governments that genocide and ethnic cleansing are acceptable policy tools. We are seeing that elsewhere in the world, too. I have asked this question of the Minister and the Foreign Secretary time and again, so, let me ask it once again: can the Minister say very clearly that the UK Government will join that case? If he cannot say so today, will he commit to saying so soon? Very eminent British lawyers, such as Philippe Sands, are involved and are asking the British Government to support it, because if they do not, people will quite rightly ask whether it is a case of the UK Government taking the stance that it is acceptable to commit acts of genocide on Muslim minorities.

Nigel Adams: I congratulate the hon. Lady on her work on this issue, alongside the former Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Surrey (Jeremy Hunt). She is absolutely right that accountability is vital. The Myanmar military has committed atrocities against the Rohingya and other minorities, and there has been no tangible progress on accountability. We have been very clear about our support for the ICJ process. It is putting pressure on Myanmar to protect the Rohingya and to work towards genuine accountability. She mentioned genocide. We agree with the UN fact-finding mission that the events of 2017 constitute ethnic cleansing. We are clear that the question of whether genocide took place is a legal determination to be made by a competent court. The ICJ is a competent court and we welcome its consideration of the issue. I look forward to welcoming her and my right hon. Friend to discuss these issues in the FCDO shortly.

Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference

Beth Winter: What the Government’s priorities are for the nuclear non-proliferation treaty review conference in 2021.

James Cleverly: The United Kingdom’s priority is to reinforce the non-proliferation treaty as a vital part of the international security architecture and to highlight the UK’s strong track record across all three pillars of the treaty. Building on the successful 2020 UK-led P5 process, we will work to promote transparency between nuclear and non-nuclear states and submit a national report to highlight our achievement in support of the NPT. The UK will also emphasise the important role of peaceful uses of nuclear energy in achieving the sustainable development goals.

Beth Winter: Given that the UK is a signatory to this treaty, does the Minister agree that the logical next step would be for the UK now to become a signatory to the UN treaty on the prohibition of nuclear weapons, taking the lead from the First Minister of Wales, who has welcomed this treaty? In that way, we in the UK can take a lead internationally to create a future throughout the world without nuclear weapons.

James Cleverly: The UK has reduced by half its nuclear arsenal since the end of the cold war, but we will not sign or ratify the prohibition of nuclear weapons. We do not believe that this treaty brings us any closer to a world without nuclear weapons, and it will not improve the security environment.

Fabian Hamilton: I hope the Minister will agree with me that the UK must seize the opportunity of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty review conference early next year to push multilateral nuclear disarmament back up the global agenda and take the steps necessary to bring about a world free from the threat of nuclear weapons. With major non-signatories, such as India and Pakistan, still remaining, will the Minister outline how the Government plan to encourage those countries and others to commit to signing the treaty?

James Cleverly: I think that everyone from all parts of this House will share the desire to see a world without nuclear weapons. However, we do need to ensure that at no point do we compromise the United Kingdom’s defence. We worked at the P5 conference of NPT nuclear weapon states that took place in February 2020 to demonstrate our engagement with the wider non-proliferation treaty community, and we will continue to work on our priorities: transparency, the UK national report, disarmament verification and peaceful uses of nuclear energy.

UK Preparedness: End of the Transition Period

Simon Baynes: What progress his Department has made on ensuring UK preparedness for the end of the transition period.

Wendy Morton: Although it remains our intention and hope to reach agreement with the EU, as a responsible Government we continue to make extensive preparations for a wide range of scenarios. The FCDO is leading communication campaigns aimed at UK nationals living in the EU and UK travellers to the EU to help to ensure that they take the actions they need to be ready for the end of the transition period. We have also launched the UK nationals support fund, providing up to £3 million to support at-risk and hard-to-reach UK nationals who might need additional support to apply for residency in their host EU member states.

Simon Baynes: Will the Minister tell us how businesses and organisations in Clwyd South and the rest of the UK can access practical advice and support from the Government to ensure that they are ready for the end of the transition period?

Wendy Morton: My hon. Friend is right to ask such questions on behalf of his constituents. Let me point him in the direction of some areas of support. First, the Welsh Government provide an online EU transition portal at www.businesswales.gov.wales, where businesses and organisations can find up-to-date advice from the Welsh Government; there is an online query service and a helpline. For the UK as a whole, the best place to start is the gov.uk website, which provides comprehensive and up-to-date advice and includes step-by-step guides in key areas. From a business perspective, it might also be of interest to my hon. Friend to know that we continue to make excellent progress in our negotiations for a comprehensive free trade agreement to come into force in 2021, and we have agreed with the European economic area and European Free Trade Association states a continuity deal to ensure that trade flows continue at the end of the year while we finalise the more ambitious FTA that we are negotiating.

Quality Education for Girls

Damian Hinds: What assessment he has made of the effect of the covid-19 pandemic on the Government’s commitment to ensure that girls throughout the world receive 12 years of quality education.

Wendy Morton: Since 2015, the UK has supported 15.6 million children to gain a decent education. Sadly, due to covid-19, 1.6 billion learners were out of education at the peak of school closures, and an estimated 8 million girls are at risk of not returning. As one of our key priorities, we are working with countries directly and supporting the efforts of the Global Partnership for Education, Education Cannot Wait, UNICEF and the UNHCR to get girls back to school.

Damian Hinds: Britain’s contribution to ensuring girls’ education is one of the most important and proudest parts of our entire work in international development. How will the Minister ensure that the Global Partnership  for Education conference is a success, and that countries around the world continue to step up to the plate on this most essential agenda?

Wendy Morton: My right hon. Friend makes a really important point. I know of his continued interest in education, particularly girls’ education. I assure him that we have established regular senior engagement with the Global Partnership for Education and our Kenyan co-hosts to ensure a successful replenishment that delivers major funding for girls’ education. We will secure significant pledges through bilateral engagement and in global forums from both traditional donors and new partners, and through domestic and global networks we will build attention to and expectation around this important replenishment.

Sarah Champion: The Minister is aware that girls can only benefit from education if we tackle child marriage, female genital mutilation and all gender-based violence. NGOs report that funding for GBV programmes are not keeping up with the rise in cases due to covid-19. In October, the United Nations Population Fund stated that
“funding for GBV prevention and response remains unacceptably low.”
Is the UK going to further increase UK official development assistance for GBV programmes to combat the secondary impacts of covid-19 on women and girls? Is the money ring-fenced? And will the Minister be challenging the Chancellor’s attack on foreign aid, which will undermine all this work?

Wendy Morton: The hon. Lady may attempt to draw me into the debate on aid, but she knows that I am not going to speculate on that. She emphasises the importance of girls’ education. The UK is a world leader in our education expertise and our development spend. As I said, since 2015—[Interruption.] Opposition Front Benchers may mutter, but let us be absolutely clear: the UK has supported 15.6 million children to gain a decent education, and 8 million of those are girls. Our country direct programme for research and funding to organisations such as the Global Partnership for Education and Education Cannot Wait makes the UK a global leader in promoting girls’ education.

Armenia and Azerbaijan

Andy Carter: What recent assessment the Government have made of the political situation between Armenia and Azerbaijan.

Wendy Morton: The Government welcomed the news of the 10 November peace deal agreed between Armenia and Azerbaijan.  I spoke to Azerbaijani Foreign Minister Bayramov on 13 November welcoming the news of the deal. It is now important that the co-chairs of the OSCE Minsk group—France, the US and Russia—continue to work together to ensure a sustainable peaceful solution that is based on the Minsk basic principles. In the meantime, the UK is also playing its part in dealing with the humanitarian impact of the fighting.

Andy Carter: I thank my hon. Friend for her response and the work that she is doing on this issue, which is raised by a number of constituents in Warrington South concerned, in part, because this conflict is not covered in the UK media. Does she agree that the critical action to ensure that the conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh comes to an end is continuing UK support for the OSCE Minsk group and dialogue between Azerbaijanis and Armenians?

Wendy Morton: My hon. Friend makes a really important point about making sure that we seek and maintain a lasting peaceful settlement to this conflict. He is absolutely right that now that the proper fighting has ended, it is critical that the members of the Minsk group work together to deliver a lasting peaceful settlement. The UK has consistently supported the work of the co-chairs of the Minsk group to deliver that. Continued dialogue between Azerbaijan and Armenia is essential to prevent any further loss of life and to bring about a permanent negotiated end to this conflict.

Topical Questions

Paul Howell: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Dominic Raab: Since the last oral questions, I have opened the first ministerial meeting of the global Media Freedom Coalition of 37 countries, which the UK co-chairs alongside Canada; I have spoken to Prime Minister Abiy of Ethiopia to call for an urgent ceasefire in the Tigray region; and worked with my Five Eyes counterparts to issue a joint statement expressing serious concern regarding China’s imposition of new rules to disqualify legislators in Hong Kong.

Paul Howell: Will the Secretary of State identify opportunities to pressure the Chinese Government into ratifying the forced labour convention, the abolition of forced labour convention, and the 2014 protocol to the forced labour convention, allowing the UK to be sure that supply chains being used by UK businesses and government are in no way supporting the Chinese Government’s persecution of the Uyghurs? Does he agree that if UK business cannot get a full assurance, they should preferably onshore their supply chains back to UK plc?

Dominic Raab: I warmly welcome the spirit of my hon. Friend’s question, although I think we need to be realistic about what China is going to be willing to sign up to. Therefore, for our part, we work very closely with UK businesses. It is very important—a hallmark of global Britain—that our businesses conduct themselves with integrity. We were the first country to produce a national action plan on the UN guiding principles on business and human rights, and the first country, with the Modern Slavery Act 2015, to ask businesses to report on their supply chains and how they could be affected. We are very proud of our international leadership in this area.

Preet Kaur Gill: Our existing 0.7% aid commitment sends
“a strong signal that the UK is a reliable partner for long-term economic, social, environmental and educational advancement across the globe”,
and this is “cheaper than fighting wars”—not my words but those of the CBI and the former Chief of the Defence Staff, General Lord David Richards. Does the Secretary of State agree that rowing back on our promise to the world’s poorest people would jeopardise our soft power status ahead of the year when the UK will host the G7 and COP26, and will he recommit to his manifesto pledge, made exactly a year ago today, to spend 0.7% of GNI on aid?

Dominic Raab: ODA and our aid budget will remain at the absolute centre of the work we do as a force for good. I am afraid that we will have to wait for the spending review to hear what the Chancellor has to say on that.

Tom Randall: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the aggressive language from the Chinese Foreign Ministry, saying that the west
“should beware of their eyes being poked and blinded”,
demonstrates that country’s contempt for freedom and democracy and that now is the time for stringent actions, including targeted sanctions? If the current sanctions regime does not allow for the targeting of those responsible for what is happening in Hong Kong, will the Government consider new regulations that target those authority figures who are truly guilty, not innocent Hongkongers?

Dominic Raab: I totally share my hon. Friend’s objective. With the Magnitsky sanctions, the key thing is to target those directly responsible. That requires evidence, and we work very closely with all our international partners to share our experience and compare notes in relation to that. The recent comments follow on from the solidarity that we as Five Eyes, alongside the US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, have shown in relation to human rights, in particular in Hong Kong. It also follows on from the wider caucus of 39 countries that backed the UK in the UN Third Committee on not only Hong Kong but the issue of Xinjiang.

Jack Brereton: Christians, Muslims and others have been persecuted for their faith across India. What are the UK Government doing to ensure that people have freedom of religion and belief worldwide?

Nigel Adams: My hon. Friend is right to raise that. Protecting and promoting the freedom of religion or belief is an important part of our bilateral and multilateral relationships, and we do not shy away from acting on our concerns. We continue to deliver the recommendations of the report by the Bishop of Truro. Of the 22 recommendations, we have fully delivered 10 and made good progress on another seven, and we are on track to deliver all 22 by the time of the three-year review in mid-2022.

Douglas Chapman: It was reported last week that the Government are considering reducing our international aid spending from 0.7% to 0.5% of our GNI, despite that being a commitment enshrined in UK law and a firm Conservative manifesto promise. Does the Secretary of State agree that the pandemic landscape has changed things in such a way that this spending is probably needed now more  than ever, and the FCDO must build up the resilience of vulnerable and developing countries to tackle current and future pandemics? Is the 0.7% commitment written in stone?

Dominic Raab: The hon. Gentleman is right to point to the important work that we do through ODA and on development. The Prime Minister hosted the Gavi summit, working with countries around the world to ensure that there is equitable access to a new vaccine. In relation to the 0.7% commitment and our future ODA spending, I am afraid he will have to wait for the spending review tomorrow.

Chris Grayling: My right hon. Friend is aware of my concern about the economic collapse that the pandemic has caused in some of the world’s most important conservation areas and the resulting increase in poaching and the illegal wildlife trade in many areas. Could he reassure me that, over the coming weeks and months, he will target more of our aid budget at helping communities in those areas, protecting wildlife and tackling the illegal trade, which is damaging so much of our conservation?

James Cleverly: The full extent of the impact of covid-19 on the illegal wildlife trade is not known, but my right hon. Friend is right to raise this issue. We know that it is a serious crime undertaken by organised criminal networks. We have contributed £250 million to the Global Environment Facility, which runs the world’s biggest programme to tackle the illegal wildlife trade. He will understand that I am not able to give full details of future ODA spending commitments at this point.

Stella Creasy: Tomorrow is International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women, as declared by the United Nations. British citizen Caitlin McNamara has spoken publicly about being seriously sexually assaulted by Sheikh Nayhan, the United Arab Emirates Minister of tolerance. Has the Foreign Secretary raised that case with his counterparts in the UAE and demanded action on it? Have the Government looked at using Magnitsky sanctions, given that this gentleman is based in the UK and has property here? What are the Government doing in this case to show that it is not just words but deeds that matter when it comes to gender-based violence?

James Cleverly: The FCDO takes all reports of sexual assaults abroad extremely seriously. Miss McNamara had a deeply distressing experience in the UAE earlier this year. Consular officials from the embassy supported her when she reported the incident to them, and the FCDO consular staff are standing by to do everything they can to support Miss McNamara and her legal team.

Michael Fabricant: My right hon. Friend will know that we enjoy very close security and other relationships with the United States of America. This will indeed have been strengthened by the Prime Minister’s announcement to increase defence spending and, of course, our membership of the Five Eyes. However, my right hon. Friend will know that this morning the Dunn family lost their appeal against the   Foreign Office regarding the recall of Anne Sacoolas to the United Kingdom to face trial for death through dangerous driving. Could my right hon. Friend make a statement about that, and does he think that, with the change of Administration, she might now be able to come back to the United Kingdom?

Dominic Raab: I thank my hon. Friend for raising this case. He is right to say that the High Court has found that the Foreign Office behaved lawfully, properly and in good faith throughout. However, I appreciate that, as he will know, that will be no solace to the family, who are still very much grieving for the loss of their precious son. We have made it very clear that we are on side of the Dunn family. We have consistently called for Anne Sacoolas to return. We will continue to do so, including, as my hon. Friend asked, in relation to the new Administration. I also negotiated the change of the arrangements as they affect the Croughton base so a case like this—an injustice like this—cannot happen in the future. In relation to the claim that the family are bringing in the US, I have made it clear that we are willing to support it in various ways.

Stephen Timms: Kenyan Government pensions in respect of service often decades ago have not been paid since early last year. A cross-party group with constituents affected has just written to the Minister for Africa—the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend East (James Duddridge)—about this. Will the Minister meet us to discuss what more can be done to ensure that payments do resume and that the arrears due are paid as well?

Dominic Raab: I thank the right hon. Gentleman, who I know always raises this case and these issues very assiduously and conscientiously. Of course, I will make sure that he can have a meeting with the Africa Minister to look at what further we in the FCDO can do.

David Simmonds: I welcome the Government’s commitment to fighting disease abroad, and I have personally seen the benefits that UK projects have brought to parts of Africa affected by malaria. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the £500 million investment by the UK in tackling malaria is both a welcome step against disease abroad and a benefit at home?

Dominic Raab: I thank my hon. Friend, and he is absolutely right. The UK is a founding member of the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. Malaria deaths have halved since 2002. That is an incredible achievement, and vital to bringing stability and hope to those countries affected.

Debbie Abrahams: The human rights abuses that Kashmiri people have faced over generations are unacceptable. The 2018 and 2019 United Nations human rights reports documented the scale of these abuses, and since August 2019 things have only got worse. Just last week, shelling between India and Pakistan—two nuclear powers—across the line of control saw at least 15 people killed. This follows on from escalating tensions between India and China in the Galwan valley since the summer. Kashmiris feel that  they have been abandoned by the international community, including the UK. What is the Foreign Secretary doing to contribute to an international coalition to support India and Pakistan in negotiations on de-escalating  the immediate crisis, and will he commit to targeting development funding to support Kashmiris?

Nigel Adams: I thank the hon. Lady for her question, and for her continued emphasis in this regard. These matters about the region of Kashmir have to be settled bilaterally between Pakistan and India. What I can say is that we do raise this issue at every opportunity with both authorities. I am more than happy to ask the Minister for South Asia to meet the hon. Lady, so that she can get a deeper insight into the actions that the Government are taking.

Simon Baynes: Will the Secretary of State comment on the FCDO’s activities promoting Wales in the world, particularly around the time of St David’s day each year? What other Wales-focused activities does it conduct in its embassies and diplomatic missions globally?

Dominic Raab: An important part of the work we do involves promoting all four corners of the United Kingdom. We do that in our post through a celebration of St David’s day, as well as other national festivals, and we do it all round the world. Through the GREAT UK Challenge Fund, the FCDO promotes Welsh businesses and Welsh culture. My hon. Friend might be interested to know that in the last financial year we supported 40 projects promoting the devolved nations, including 14 in Wales, and with the Department for International Trade we helped to attract 62 foreign direct investment projects, creating 2,736 new jobs. That demonstrates the value to the people of Wales of the United Kingdom Government, including in their foreign policy.

Robert Largan: The International Atomic Energy Agency has confirmed that Iran is building an underground nuclear facility, and that its enriched uranium stockpiles are now more than 12 times the limit set out in the 2015 nuclear deal. Given those facts, will the Minister confirm to the House that in the event of continued non-compliance by the Iranian regime, the UK is prepared to consider sanctions?

Dominic Raab: I was in Berlin yesterday for an E3 meeting with my French and German counterparts on exactly that issue, and on how we are taking forward accountability within the scope of the joint comprehensive plan of action. More than 200 EU sanctions are listed in place against Iran, and with our E3 partners we are continuing the JCPOA to maintain and constrain Iran’s nuclear programme as best we can. We are looking to re-engage with the new US Administration, to see how we can strengthen that even further.

Alun Cairns: The Minister for Europe is aware that my 18-year-old constituent, Tom Channon, tragically died at the Eden Roc complex in Mallorca in July 2018. That followed a similar death of Tomas Hughes, just weeks earlier. I believe there is a strong criminal case to be pursued for prosecution for negligence, and on 10 July this year I wrote to the president of the provincial court. I have pursued the   matter persistently, but I still have not received a reply. Covid will have played a part, but does the Minister agree that waiting five months after the deaths of two 18-year-olds, two years earlier, is wholly unacceptable?

Nigel Adams: My right hon. Friend is right to raise that case. Deaths abroad of our constituents are always tragic, and our consular staff at post have spoken with the president of the provisional court in Palma. We have asked him for a response to my right hon. Friend’s letter. He is right to point out that there are some enormous workloads as a result of the covid pandemic, but the president has assured us that he will respond to the letter in due course. We will continue to push on behalf of my right hon. Friend and his constituents.

Wes Streeting: Given that the Rajapaksa Government in Sri Lanka have effectively withdrawn from the commitments that the country made at the UN Human Rights Council, can we count on the Foreign Secretary to show the leadership we need to secure a new UN resolution, and ensure the prosecution of historical war crimes and accountability for previous human rights abuses, as well as an effective challenge to the present Government for ongoing human rights abuses?

Nigel Adams: The hon. Gentleman is right to raise that issue and I applaud his work with the all-party group for Tamils, alongside that of other colleagues. We will work closely with our international partners and the Human Rights Council on how best to take forward this important issue. The Minister responsible for Sri Lanka, Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon, raised a number of those concerns, including the harassment of civil society and the militarisation of civilian functions, when he spoke with the Sri Lankan Foreign Minister on 5 November. We have been clear in our support for the UNHRC framework, both in our discussions with the Government of Sri Lanka and with the UNHRC in February, June and September.

Iain Duncan Smith: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has witnessed the most appalling attacks and bullying by the dictatorial Chinese Government against Australia, including sanctions just because it asked for an independent inquiry into the covid issue. We stand together with our oldest friend and ally, so will the Secretary of State please now publicly condemn the actions of China, and support Australia at this very difficult time?

Dominic Raab: We stand absolutely shoulder to shoulder with Australia. I had exchanges with Marise Payne, the Australian Foreign Minister, at the weekend, and as we have shown, not just on the issue that my right hon. Friend has mentioned, but on Hong Kong, with the Five Eyes alliance, we will always stand shoulder to shoulder to make sure that we protect our key interests, protect our values, and show the solidarity that he expects and requires.

Lindsay Hoyle: In order to allow the safe exit of hon. Members participating in this item of business and the safe arrival of those participating in the next, I am suspending the House.
Sitting suspended.

Leaseholders and Cladding

Clive Betts: To ask the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government if he will make a statement on whether leaseholders are expected to pay for the removal of dangerous cladding from their homes.

Christopher Pincher: I congratulate the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), the Chair of the Select Committee on Housing, Communities and Local Government, on securing the urgent question, which is of huge interest and concern to many of our constituents up and down the country.
The question of who pays for remediation works is key for the Government and many of our constituents. We have been clear that leaseholders should not have to worry about the cost of fixing historical safety defects in their buildings that they did not cause. Test have shown clearly that aluminium composite material—the kind of cladding found on Grenfell Tower—is the most dangerous form of cladding material. We continue to engage with building owners, regulators and the wider industry to ensure that it is removed from high-rise residential buildings as quickly as possible.
ACM remediation costs are being funded through several sources, including warranties, building owners and developers. We have provided £600 million to fund the removal of ACM where funding has been a key barrier to remediation and the Chancellor of the Exchequer has allocated a further £1 billion to be spent on removing other types of unsafe cladding over the current financial year.
It is important to remember that this is a multi-year problem. Remediation work cannot be done overnight and it must be done properly so that it makes buildings and residents safe. That forms part of the ongoing discussion that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has with other Departments.
However, I am clear, and I hope that the House is clear, that public funding does not absolve the industry from taking responsibility. We expect developers, investors and building owners who have the means to pay to cover remediation costs themselves without passing on costs to leaseholders, but we recognise that there are cases where that might not be possible, and cases where there may be wider costs relating to historical defects. The Government are determined to identify suitable financial solutions and remove barriers to remediation.
The Government have asked Michael Wade to accelerate his work with leaseholders and the financial sector to develop proposals to protect leaseholders from the costs of remediating historical defects wherever possible. However, we must also ensure that the bill does not fall wholly on taxpayers. We will update leaseholders on that work before the Building Safety Bill, which has just completed its prelegislative scrutiny, is introduced in Parliament.

Clive Betts: Thank you, Mr Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to ask my urgent question. The Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee has just carried out prelegislative scrutiny of the draft  Building Safety Bill. In general, the Bill is very welcome. It implements the recommendations of the Hackitt report,  post Grenfell. However, clause 89 contains provisions for leaseholders to be charged a building safety charge. That could cover future costs, but it could also be used to recover the cost of historical defects, such as the removal of dangerous cladding. That is the concern.
I have a number of questions for the Minister. First, will he confirm very clearly and straightforwardly that leaseholders should not have to pay any of the costs of removing dangerous cladding from their homes, as has been the Government’s policy for some time? Those leaseholders bought their properties in good faith. They have not done anything wrong and they should not be financially distressed as a result.
If the Minister thinks that leaseholders should have to pay something—the Building Safety Minister said to the Select Committee that he thought an affordable amount was reasonable—how would he define an affordable amount? The Building Safety Minister said it was something that did not bankrupt an individual. However, if leaseholders are not going to pay—I hope the Minister will confirm that point—I accept that he should pursue developers, freeholders and others. In the meantime, if developers have gone out of business or are refusing to pay, does the Minister accept that, at least in the interim, the Government are going to have to step in and fund all the costs?
If the Minister accepts that point, does he also accept that the £1.6 billion so far made available to remove dangerous cladding will be totally inadequate? The Select Committee heard that to make all high-rise buildings totally safe and remove all defects, the total bill could be as high as £15 billion. Leaseholders should not have to pay that.
Finally, does the Minister accept that, without assurances on these points, many people are going to have a very miserable Christmas? They are trapped in properties they cannot sell, that they often cannot insure and where they are having to pay for waking watches, and wondering how on earth they are going to pay the bills that could arrive on their doormats at any time.

Christopher Pincher: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his urgent question and for welcoming the proposals that we have tabled in the draft Building Safety Bill. He asks a number of important questions.
First, the hon. Gentleman asks whether the building safety charge will be retrospective. We envisage that the building safety charge will cover ongoing costs that leaseholders may have to pay for legal costs, building safety inspections and the like. In our proposals, we have said that the Secretary of State will be able to prescribe costs to ensure that unfair building safety charge costs do not fall unreasonably on the leaseholder.
We will of course look very carefully at the 80-page report from the Select Committee. I think there are somewhere north of 40 recommendations in the report. We want to look at it carefully and considerately, because we recognise it forms an important part of our answer to the challenge of building safety. I hope that we can develop a cross-party approach to our further scrutiny of the Bill when it comes before Parliament.
The hon. Gentleman asked me whether leaseholders will pay any costs at all. The point of introducing £1.6 billion of public money is to make sure that in the buildings that are most at risk and where there is no   means to pay, the state steps in and supports those leaseholders, but, fundamentally, we expect developers and owners to step up and execute their responsibility to pay where buildings have been defective.
I cannot say that there will not be some costs at some point related to some defect in historical building safety that will not fall upon the leaseholder, but we want to make sure, through the public money that we are spending and through the work of Michael Wade, that we find innovative solutions to make sure that such costs are as minimal as possible. We cannot write an open cheque on behalf of the taxpayer. That would send the wrong signal to developers and those who are responsible for these buildings that they do not have to pay because the taxpayer will.
The hon. Gentleman asks about my noble Friend the Building Safety Minister in the other place. I can tell him that Lord Greenhalgh is working round the clock to find solutions to the challenges that face leaseholders up and down the country. He is determined, with the work that he is doing with insurers, developers and the financial services sector, to ensure that we come up with those solutions, and I look forward to working with him closely as the Bill, which he will introduce to Parliament, works its way through both Houses.

Peter Bottomley: It is on record that I am a leaseholder, but I am not affected by these proposals or problems.
The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) and I chair the all-party parliamentary group on leasehold and commonhold reform. We give our support to the work of the Select Committee, which, in this report, as in its previous one on lease renters, has laid out starkly one of the problems of some particular tenants. Social tenants do not have to pay, ordinary tenants do not have to pay; it is leaseholder tenants who have been lumbered with unimaginable anxiety and with costs beyond possible chance of payment. Until we get a full grip not just on the very high buildings and the aluminium cladding but on all the problems, including the developers who used wood for balconies in ways that were against the house building regulations, we are going to be left with a frozen part of the housing market in every single one of our constituencies.
We are grateful for the work that my right hon. Friend and his colleagues have done, but he should go on paying attention, as I think Lord Greenhalgh has, to the work of the Leasehold Knowledge Partnership, which was the first campaigning charity to get a grip of the scale of the problem. Also, will he say a word about waking watches, which are going on too long and at too high a cost?

Christopher Pincher: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his contribution and for his ongoing interest in and commitment to this very important area of work. As I said earlier, we do not want leaseholders to carry the burden of these costs. That is why we are working with Michael Wade, who has a 40-odd-year history in the insurance market, to find innovative solutions to what is a very complicated problem. It is why we have also put aside a significant amount of public money in this financial year to remediate the buildings that are most at risk where the owners have no other means of paying.
My hon. Friend also asks about waking watch. We have published data on the costs of waking watch so that leaseholders are able to see the relative differences in charges by waking watch providers. It is entirely wrong that some providers charge so much, and I would point leaseholders to that data so that they can better understand where they may get better service. They may also know that alarm systems can pay for themselves within seven weeks and obviate the need for waking watch.

Mike Amesbury: The Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee’s scrutiny report on the draft Building Safety Bill, published today, makes for powerful yet sobering reading, not just for Members across the Chamber but, importantly, for the hundreds of thousands of leaseholders that are trapped in this living nightmare, left to foot the cost of a broken building safety system that they did not create. Before this, we had another powerful HCLG Committee report, a Public Accounts Committee report and a National Audit Office report, which repeatedly made it clear that, well over three years on from Grenfell, where 72 people lost their lives, the Government need to step up and step in to make buildings safe with a greater sense of urgency.
There are too many aspects of the building safety crisis to mention: the cost of remediation being passed to leaseholders and, yes, the interim costs such as waking watch; the snail’s pace of the work; other safety issues, such as firebreaks and wooden balconies not covered by the funding; the lack of prioritisation according to risk other than simply the height of buildings; and the ongoing saga of the external wall survey forms, despite this weekend’s botched announcement by the Secretary of State. How many reports are we going to need?
By my count, the Government have promised 11 times in this Chamber and beyond that leaseholders should be protected from the cost of remediation. Now we witness Minister after Minister shifting sand, referring to “affordable” costs put on the shoulders of leaseholders and enshrining in the draft Building Safety Bill the building safety charge—clause 89, there in black and white for people to see. Will the Minister tell me and the House what additional invoice paid in 28 days he defines as “affordable” or, as referred to at the Dispatch Box today, “reasonable”? Please answer that question.
Finally, will the Minister explain why those companies and developers that knowingly engineered false test results for insulation and cladding products, then riddled thousands of homes with flammable materials, are getting away scot-free?

Christopher Pincher: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for his questions. It is not true to say that leaseholders are being left to foot the bill. He and the House know full well that the taxpayer is spending £1.6 billion in this financial year to help remediate those buildings most at risk where the owners are unable to pay. Of course, those discussions across Government are ongoing. We keep the situation under review. However, I remind the House that it is not fair simply to place such a burden on the taxpayer. Developers and owners must step up and play their part.
The hon. Gentleman raised the question of the external wall system 1 form, which he knows is a form produced by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors; it is  not a Government form. I am pleased that, as a result of the negotiations undertaken by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and Lord Greenhalgh, the EWS1 form will no longer be necessary for those buildings that are not clad. The industry has made that clear. That will be to the benefit of something like 450,000 leaseholders. But there is more to do, and we will continue to do it.
The hon. Gentleman asked me what affordability is. It is a very subjective matter, because what is affordable to one person is not to another. We want to ensure that, as a result of the work that my noble Friend is doing with the financial services sector and the insurance sector, we come up with appropriate and innovative solutions to ensure that unfair costs do not fall on leaseholders for defects that may be identified down the line.
The hon. Gentleman also referred to commentary on lies told about fire safety tests. I entirely agree that that was wrong. It was outrageous. Where firms have been proven to lie, they must of course receive the full force of the law.

Lindsay Hoyle: I note that we have 62 people to get through, so I am concerned. I recognise that everyone needs to get in, because they all have personal circumstances, so if we can help each other, that might just get us through.

Nickie Aiken: While I welcome the fact that a number of responsible property owners have taken the necessary steps, supported by Government funding, to remove dangerous cladding from their buildings, the leaseholders and residents of Paddington Walk in my constituency are still under pressure from their buildings’ owner, European Land, to pay for the works required to remove ACM cladding. As those residents said to me in an email sent this morning: “Manufacturers are responsible for defective kettles or cars. Why is it different for the most expensive purchase anyone will ever make in their lives?” Does my right hon. Friend agree that, given the billions of pounds being made available by the Government, it is now inexcusable that many building owners have still failed to remove dangerous cladding and are still trying to pass the cost and, indeed, the buck to leaseholders, who have suffered enough in this living nightmare?

Christopher Pincher: I quite agree with my hon. Friend. The buck ought to lie with the owners, their developers or the warrantee holder. She will know that we have spent a great deal of public money to remediate those buildings that are most in need of it, as I have described, but the responsibility of the developers—there are some very good developers out there—must be fully understood by us in this House and by them as an industry to remediate buildings that need it and to restore the reputation of their sector.

David Linden: I congratulate the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), the Chairman of the Select Committee, on securing the urgent question.
Despite the building safety programme applying only in England and Wales, its advice is still being used by insurance companies and mortgage providers in Scotland to guide decisions. This is leading to many people north  of the border ending up in the same position as those south of the border: essentially mortgage prisoners and having their properties valued as worthless. The Minister knows that this is not just an issue of commonality for buildings over 18 metres; it includes those under 18 metres, too. So what measures will the Government be bringing forward, particularly with an eye to tomorrow’s spending review? What discussions has he had with lenders and insurance companies to make it clear that applying this process to Scotland is unfair? Will he agree to meet a delegation of Scottish MPs to look more closely at the issue impacting our constituents in this regard?
The problems for leaseholders arising from the 18-metre rule raise the question: why is the archaic and often unjust institution of leaseholding continuing in England at all? Might this, therefore, be an opportunity to follow Scotland’s example and abolish this outdated practice and the negative consequences that are so common  with it?

Christopher Pincher: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for his questions. I will touch on two points that he raised. He is right that the financial services sector has commonalities throughout the United Kingdom: not simply in England but in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. That is why the Secretary of State and Lord Greenhalgh have held a series of meetings with UK Finance and other components of the financial services sector. It is why an agreement has been reached that the EWS1 form should not apply to buildings without cladding, which, as I say, will help 450,000 or so leaseholders around the country. There is more work to do. I trust that the Scottish financial sector will take note of the advances we have made very recently in England and which we will continue to make. He raises the question of 18 metres. That is the guidance provided to us by Judith Hackitt and her committee and we are following that guidance. He also refers to leasehold reform. A leasehold reform White Paper will be forthcoming. Perhaps we may, at that time, be able to debate the advantages and disadvantages of the Scottish system and see where we are able to learn from them and possibly they are able to learn from us.[Official Report, 26 November 2020, Vol. 684, c. 9MC.]

Sir David Amess: A number of constituents in a low-rise block of flats in Southend West have been unable to get their properties insured because of cladding issues. It will cost £400,000 to remove the cladding and their service charges will escalate. Will my right hon. Friend please reiterate the principle that those costs should not be passed on to tenants or leaseholders?

Christopher Pincher: I am happy to reiterate that point to my hon. Friend. Lord Greenhalgh has had a series of meetings with the insurance industry to make sure it fully understands and takes on board that point. He will continue to do so, as my hon. Friend will continue to campaign doughtily on behalf of his constituents.

David Lammy: I have to say to the Minister that I never dreamed that, three and a half years after my friend Khadija Saye died with her mother in Grenfell Tower, I would be here begging him to sort this problem out. I have over 1,000 residents in the Tottenham Hale Village in my constituency, a development  built by Bellway Homes, which made £500 million profits in 2018, another £500 million profits in 2019, and has shown complete disregard for my constituents living in these buildings with combustible cladding. What is the Minister going to do about leaseholders in that situation when it is clear that his building safety fund is inadequate to meet the task? Will he meet me and my constituents, so we can sort this three and a half years after the Government promised it would be fixed?

Christopher Pincher: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for his question. I sympathise with him for his personal loss and the loss of many of his friends and associates at Grenfell Tower. He asks what is being done to accelerate the pace of remediation in London, where there have been challenges that are unique to our capital. Lord Greenhalgh convened a summit of the London Mayor and the London Fire Brigade back in September to address an action plan to accelerate the work of London remediation. There was a further progress tracking meeting last month, and there are case conference meetings to address specific buildings in the capital and beyond. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that there were something like 2,700 applications for the £1 billion that we put aside for non-ACM cladding. We will work through those. We have now agreed that a significant number of them meet the criteria, and the first funding of those applications is about to begin. I am confident that the funding will be fully allocated by the end of the financial year in 2021, for which the money was made available.

Liam Fox: This is an issue of huge concern to many of my constituents in Portishead. It must be an absolute principle that leaseholders must be protected from the cost of remediation for safety issues that were not their fault. I welcome the Government’s support and approach. A £1.6 billion taxpayers’ commitment is huge, but the taxes of working families up and down the country should not be used to absolve developers, insurers and owners from their proper responsibilities. When will my hon. Friend come forward and set out how these responsibilities will be enforced?

Christopher Pincher: I am obliged to my right hon. Friend for his question. He is absolutely right. As I said in my earlier remarks, first and foremost the responsibility must fall squarely on the developers of these properties, their owners and warranty holders. There are some good developers that have worked hard to remediate ACM cladding; something like 50% of the buildings that have had ACM cladding remediated have been done, and are being done, by the private sector. Pemberstone, Mace, Peabody, Barratt Developments and others are all working to remediate their buildings. We have been clear that those that do not, such as those referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken), must recognise that they will receive the full force of the law. I can tell the House that, from December, those responsible for buildings where remediation is not forecast to start by the end of 2020 will be publicly named, as a further incentive for them to get going.

Tim Farron: It would be an inexcusable outrage if the costs of making buildings safe in the light of the Grenfell tragedy fell in   practice not on the developers or the governments, whose disregard of safety led to that tragedy, but instead fell on the innocent leaseholders; yet, in effect, that is the Government’s default position, as people are left with homes they cannot afford to make safe and homes that they cannot sell. Will the Government accept Lords amendment 13 to the Fire Safety Bill in the name of my honourable friends Baroness Pinnock and Lord Shipley in order to stop this injustice?

Christopher Pincher: The hon. Gentleman asks about an amendment that is being sent down to us from the other place. We will, of course, examine very closely the wording of that amendment, but my understanding is that it is a defective one, notwithstanding the issues  that he raises and the concerns that he properly posits about leaseholders footing the bill. I hope that I have been clear to the House about my view on that. My understanding of the particular amendment is that it would be retrospective, which raises all sorts of legal challenges. It would also mean that building owners would be responsible for the normal wear and tear of buildings, which I am sure the whole House will accept would not be appropriate. We will look closely at the amendment, but I do not think that I can say at this stage that we can support it.

Tom Hunt: I spoke about this issue soon after being elected.It affected one tower in my constituency. Since then, the problem has ballooned, and every week more of my constituents seem to be dragged into this. I agree that responsibility should ultimately lie with the freeholder, but the reality is that while the Government have that dispute with freeholders, it is the leaseholders in the middle who have this uncertainty hanging over them. Just last week, residents at Cardinal Lofts on Ipswich waterfront were all notified by quite a distant building manager that they had to pay £300 a month for a waking watch, at a time of uncertainty about employment for many of them because of the pandemic. That is completely wrong. I am glad that some support has been provided by the Government, but we need far more certainty far sooner. Will the Minister meet me and colleagues to talk in detail about the timeline for providing that certainty?

Christopher Pincher: My hon. Friend has raised this particular issue with me before, and I know that he has campaigned hard and long on it since his election just 11 months ago. I am happy to meet him to discuss that. The issue of waking watch has been raised by other Members. As I said, we want to ensure that leaseholders are aware of waking watch costs and the opportunities to mitigate them. It is the reason why we want developers to get on and remediate, and it is also why we have put £1.6 billion of taxpayers’ money aside to ensure that we can remediate those buildings where owners cannot, so that the waking watch issue becomes moot.

Clive Efford: It is a disgrace that three and a half years on, people still do not know whether the properties they live in are safe, and others cannot sell because they cannot get external wall system certificates. I am told by surveyors who would willingly carry out this work that they cannot do so because they cannot afford the huge premiums that are being charged by insurance companies. That is leading to a huge backlog  in this area of work. It is essential to get that moving. What is the Minister going to do about that, and would he consider paying those premiums, so that we can remove the backlog and start to get some idea of the problem we are facing?

Christopher Pincher: The hon. Gentleman asks what we are doing to speed up the surveying process. We are making more professionals available to undertake EWS assessments. We are spending something like £700,000 to fund the training of those assessors, and we will produce about 2,000 of them over the next six months, which should help to speed up the process.

Chris Grayling: In my constituency, the biggest concern for residents has been the inappropriate application of these rules and the EWS form to much lower-rise buildings than were ever envisaged and the resulting problems created for them in selling flats, moving flat and so forth. I welcome the announcements made by my right hon. Friend last weekend; I am grateful to him for that. Could I ask him to keep up the pressure on the different professionals and organisations involved, to ensure that this problem really does disappear? These homeowners should not be subject to pressures because of something that is not designed for their kind of property.

Christopher Pincher: My right hon. Friend can ask, and we will.

Andrew Gwynne: I often wonder how Ministers would react if they received a letter, often out of the blue, saying that the cost to make their home safe far exceeded their annual salary, sometimes by multiple amounts. We know that there have been more than 2,800 applications for the building safety fund. Can the Minister inform the House how many have been allowed to proceed to a formal application so far and how much has actually been paid out of the fund to date?

Christopher Pincher: I can tell the hon. Gentleman that 2,704 applications were received. A significant number of them, I regret to tell the House, were not sufficient to allow an immediate assessment, but more than 100 have been assessed successfully to move on to the next stage. The first tender for payment has been agreed, and I am confident that by the end of the financial year for which this money was set aside, it will have been fully allocated, and remediation work will have begun.

Roger Gale: In his opening remarks, my right hon. Friend said that people should not be required to pay for faults that they did not cause, and he is absolutely right. Further to the point raised by the Father of the House, I have in my constituency one block that has social housing, private rented accommodation and full and shared leaseholders; will my right hon. Friend assure the House that the leaseholder element will not ever be faced with a disproportionate bill that will in effect pay for those who do not pay at all?

Christopher Pincher: I am obliged to my right hon. Friend for his question. As I said earlier, I cannot say that there will not be some cost that may occur at some  point to leaseholders for historical defects work that may be undertaken, but we do want to make sure that, as a result of the work that Michael Wade is doing with the financial services and others, any such costs are fair and reasonable and can be carried. That is why we have put aside that £1.6 billion to make sure that the cost of cladding remediation for cladding such as ACM and high-pressure laminate can be funded by the taxpayer when the developers are not able to fund it, so that the cost does not fall on the leaseholder.

Karen Buck: We have already heard about the difficulties that leaseholders have had with the EWS1 form backlog when they are seeking to sell. At the weekend, the Secretary of State claimed that his proposal to remove the requirement for this certification from properties without cladding had been cleared by and had the backing of mortgage lenders; in fact, UK Finance and the Building Societies Association both said that they did not back the scheme and had not been consulted, and that it did not solve anything and left 1.9 million homeowners in the lurch. Will the Minister tell us whether or not leaseholders who do not have cladding will be required to have the certification, and whether his proposal now has the backing of finance lenders?

Christopher Pincher: It is my understanding that buildings that do not have cladding will not need an EWS1 form. We clearly need to do more work with the financial services sector to advance the issues that have arisen with the EWS1 form but, as a result of the negotiations and the agreements made over the weekend, we anticipate that something like 450,000 holders will no longer need to use an EWS1 form.

Matthew Offord: I wish to press the Minister on that specific point. Will he confirm whether UK Finance has officially acknowledged that leaseholders of residential properties without external cladding do not need to provide an EWS1 form to finance, remortgage or sell their properties? Where can my constituents view that confirmation?

Christopher Pincher: As I said to the hon. Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck), my understanding is that the industry has confirmed that the EWS1 form will not be necessary for buildings that do not have cladding. As I am saying it from the Dispatch Box, I would imagine that is the view of the Government.

Dean Russell: I welcome the EWS1 form measures as they will have a real impact and provide certainty for many in my constituency. However, a number of Watford residents, especially in places such as Outlook Place, are still finding it difficult to sell or remortgage their homes, so what reassurances can my right hon. Friend offer to those living in buildings with cladding that are under 18 metres?

Christopher Pincher: I am obliged to my hon. Friend, who I know has been campaigning long and hard on this issue in Watford. As I have said, as a result of some considerable and lengthy negotiations with the financial services sector, we have agreed that EWS1 forms will not be necessary for buildings that are for sale that are not clad in the same way as some buildings that are in  grave difficulty. That will help 450,000 people around the country, a number of whom I suspect will be my hon. Friend’s constituents. There is more work to do on this matter and we will continue to undertake it.

Meg Hillier: I need to declare my interest in that I am a leaseholder in an affected block, but in my case, my developer is paying for the full remediation works. The Minister must acknowledge that this is one of the biggest consumer and safety failures in a generation. For all that I chair the Public Accounts Committee—we have published a report on this issue—and I watch taxpayers’ money very closely, surely the Government need to step up, just as they did when the former Secretary of State signed a ministerial direction sanctioning the expenditure of millions of pounds because he knew that it would take too long to go through the legal process of tracking down the actual owners of buildings for the most dangerous cladding. The Government need to step up. We need 10 times the amount that has been pledged. Surely the Minister must recognise this. Too many leaseholders are trapped and will never be able to move.

Christopher Pincher: I am grateful to the hon. Lady, and I know that she is a very considerate and assiduous Chair of the Public Accounts Committee. The Government, though, have stepped up. It is why we put £600 million on the table to remediate ACM-clad buildings, and about 79% of those have now either completed or begun their remediation. Ninety-seven per cent. of social housing buildings have had that remediation completed. It is why we stepped up again with £1 billion through the building safety fund to remediate buildings that have other non-ACM-style dangerous cladding, but we must not absolve the developers and the owners of their responsibility to make sure that remediation takes place in the buildings for which they are responsible. We work with them to make sure that happens while we keep the general situation under review.

Felicity Buchan: I welcome the additional money for training for assessors, because I understand from the industry that this is a very important issue, in terms of several of the delays. I am frustrated, however, that three and a half years on from the appalling Grenfell tragedy that happened in my constituency, we still have many outstanding issues. What assurance can my right hon. Friend give me that we will not be having the same conversation in six or 12 months’ time? Are there any interim measures that we can put in place to support leaseholders?

Christopher Pincher: I am obliged to my hon. Friend. I appreciate the very unique challenge that she has as the Member of Parliament for Kensington. As I said earlier, the £700,000 of public money that we are putting aside to support the training of assessors will deliver about 2,000 assessors—clearly qualified assessors—who will be able to undertake the assessment work over the next 12 months, so I trust that that will also be a means by which we will not be having this conversation again any time in the future. The public money that we have set aside beyond that—the £1.6 billion—is also designed to ensure that the worst, most dangerous buildings are  dealt with quickly and effectively. I hope and trust that the conversations we have ongoing with developers and owners to make sure that they step up to the plate will mean that very soon, we will remediate all the buildings that are affected, and that we will be able to see value and trust restored to those buildings and the development sector.

Chi Onwurah: My constituent is a leaseholder in one of the 2,700 blocks —I think that is what the Minister said—that have applied to the building safety fund, which has approximately enough money to remedy about 600 blocks. She does not know whether her flat is safe. She cannot sell it and she does not know how much her liabilities may be. The Minister can talk about finding innovative solutions, but it is three and a half years since Grenfell and we still do not see builders, owners or developers paying for remediation. Will he guarantee to my constituent that she will not have to be liable—that she will not have to pay for these costs—and does he agree that this is just one more example that shows that the leasehold system is broken and needs to be reformed?

Christopher Pincher: The leasehold system and its reform will form part of a Government White Paper and separate debates in this Chamber, and I am sure that the hon. Lady will play her part in those.[Official Report, 26 November 2020, Vol. 684, c. 10MC.] It is not true to say that developers and others are not funding remediation. As I have described, firms such as Pemberstone, Mace, Peabody, Barratt and, I think, Legal and General are all stepping forward with funds to remediate buildings for which they are responsible, resulting in something like 50% of ACM-clad buildings being remediated by the private sector. I do not know the specific issues of the buildings in her constituency to which she refers, but I am happy to talk to her separately about them. I am confident that the £1 billion of public money that we will set aside through the Building Safety Bill will be allocated by the end of this financial year, as we said it would be, and that remediation of those non-ACM buildings will begin.

Kevin Hollinrake: I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. In many cases there are insurmountable legal problems involved in trying to charge building owners and freeholders for these sums, and developers will often point the finger elsewhere. We know that responsibility lies with the developers and installers, with the manufacturers of insulation and cladding in many cases, and, let us be honest, with successive Governments for their approach to building regulations, which must be described as ambiguous. This cannot be left at the door of the leaseholders. Is it not right that the Government should now step in, increase the building safety fund, get the work done and claim back the moneys wherever possible and from whoever possible, and where they cannot, do so by means of a cross-sector levy?

Christopher Pincher: My hon. Friend is an expert in this field and I pay tribute to him for the work that he has undertaken. Mr Wade, our adviser, is working hard with us and with the sector to develop solutions that will provide help and support to leaseholders. In the meantime, as I say, the Government have stepped up and provided a significant amount of public money to remediate the buildings that are most in need of it  where there is no other means of paying, but it must be right that we ask developers and those responsible for these buildings to pay. To signal that the state will simply step in and sub them will not encourage them to do the right thing, and it is for developers, owners and warranty suppliers in the first instance to ensure that the buildings for which they are responsible are remediated.

Daisy Cooper: Leaseholders in St Albans are already facing estimated bills of between £50,000 and £120,000 each for fixing safety defects in their buildings that they did not cause. These are not bills that are in the far-off distant future; these are costs that are being passed on to leaseholders right now, including through increased service charges. In the last three years, leaseholders in St Albans have seen their service charges rise from under £1,000 a year to £6,000 a year. Some of my residents cannot afford to pay these bills any more, and that will affect their ability to continue working in some professions, so will the Government get a grip and take urgent action to ensure that leaseholders no longer have to pay, as they are already doing, and that they do not have to foot the bill for these costs?

Christopher Pincher: I am obliged to the hon. Lady. She is right. We recognise, as she will, that there are many cases in which leasehold agreements allow the building owners—the freeholders or their managing agents—to pass on remediation costs to the leaseholders of individual flats. That is why we have instituted the work of Michael Wade to ensure that leaseholders are protected from any charges for historical remediation that are unfair. The fundamental responsibility—the first responsibility—for the remediation of those buildings must lie with the developers, the building owners and the warranty holders, and not with the leaseholders.

Theresa Villiers: I thank the Government for the substantial investment in tackling this problem, including for the social sector. Will the Minister encourage housing associations that have been funded to do this work to get it done as quickly as possible? That is the best thing to do to keep people safe, but also it is really tough on tenants effectively living in a building site for months on end, as has been the case in Desmond House in East Barnet in my constituency.

Christopher Pincher: My right hon. Friend is a doughty campaigner for her constituents in Chipping Barnet, and I will do exactly as she advises.

Stella Creasy: Hundreds of families in Walthamstow have finally managed to get their foot on the property ladder through shared ownership and now, as a result of this crisis, find themselves in properties that are almost worthless and facing huge bills. Will the Minister reconsider the decision to exclude those bills that were incurred before 11 March, because many of those people have already tried to do the right thing and have incurred huge cost to themselves through the remediation works. Surely we should not penalise those people who have tried to act promptly on this matter.

Christopher Pincher: I am obliged to the hon. Lady. The decision of the Government was to make sure that those buildings that were most in need of remediation and where the owners could not pay should be, as it were, first in the queue for Government help. We want to work with the sector, with the leaseholder community and with the adviser Michael Wade to find solutions that will ensure that unfair bills do not fall upon leaseholders who are not responsible for the troubles that they face.

Marco Longhi: I should draw your attention, Madam Deputy Speaker, to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. As a landlord myself, I make it my utmost priority to ensure that my tenants are safe in their homes. What steps is my right hon. Friend taking to ensure that all landlords are taking their duties seriously and acting on their tenants’ concerns?

Christopher Pincher: I can tell my hon. Friend that we have written to all those responsible for buildings, including their owners, where remediation has not started to remind them of their responsibilities and our expectation that remediation will begin by the end of the year. My hon. Friend the noble Lord Greenhalgh has convened roundtable meetings with owners and with local authority leaders to address the challenges that they face locally. We have made it clear that, from December, those responsible for buildings where remediation has not started and is not forecast to start by the end of this year will be publicly named. Those are active steps that we are undertaking to remind landlords and owners of their responsibilities.

Ruth Cadbury: In October, more than 1,000 of my constituents—leaseholders, shared owners, tenants and students—were asked to leave the Paragon Estate in Brentford within seven days because the current owners, Notting Hill Genesis, found significant fire safety and structural issues. They were unrelated to flammable cladding, because that had been removed two years ago. In September 2019, Richmond House in Worcester Park, a four-storey block of only 23 leasehold flats, was destroyed by fire in 11 minutes. Both estates were developed by the Barclay Group, and both had the same significant fire safety defects. The week before last, the Sunday Times said that
“the scandal over building safety spreads far beyond dangerously clad tower blocks”
and could affect 4 million people. What are the Government doing right now to protect all those at risk of dying at home because of failures in the building safety regime?

Christopher Pincher: The building safety fund was designed specifically to deal with the removal of unsafe non-ACM cladding where the buildings are over 18 metres and where materials, even before the combustible cladding ban was put in place in 2018 under statutory guidance, should not have been used on high-rise buildings. That fund is available, and, as I have described to the House, it is already being disbursed round the country and will be completed by the end of this financial year. We will continue to work with the financial sector, as I have described, using Michael Wade. We will continue to work with developers to make sure that their responsibility is executed, and support for leaseholders is provided.  As for the specifics of the case that the hon. Lady raised, I am not aware of it, but I am happy to discuss it with her outwith the Chamber.

Bob Blackman: As a member of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, I have had the opportunity to scrutinise the draft safety Bill. The report that we published today has unanimous cross-party support, and I urge my right hon. Friend and his colleagues to look at it in very great detail indeed. I do not expect—it would be unreasonable to do so—an immediate reaction today following publication. However, during the inquiry, a concern arose from Lord Greenhalgh’s evidence about costs being passed on to leaseholders. My right hon. Friend has said that proposed amendments to the Fire Safety Bill are defective in some way, but would he commit, on behalf of the Government, to make it clear that the Government will ensure that it will be illegal for the cost of remediating unsafe cladding on buildings to be passed on to leaseholders in any shape or form?

Christopher Pincher: I am obliged to my hon. Friend. I can guarantee that we will look very closely at the report. As I have said, there are something like 80 pages and 40-odd recommendations. I shall look very closely at pages 22 to 39, which may include reference to proposals from another place.

Patrick Grady: As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) said, this is not a problem that stops at the border. I have constituents in the Partick area and elsewhere who are trapped in houses that they cannot sell and cannot get fixed as a result of advice assigned for an English model of ownership and management that does not apply in Scotland. When did the Minister last engage with his Scottish Government counterparts on this, and when will he next engage with them? Will he respond to the request from my hon. Friend to meet a delegation of MPs from Scotland to discuss how this particularly affects our constituencies?

Christopher Pincher: We discuss a range of issues with our colleagues in the Scottish Government—and officials discuss with officials—in the usual way, all the time. I am very happy to discuss with the hon. Gentleman any particular arrangements that he may wish to raise, and I will make sure that any such issues are raised with my noble Friend Lord Greenhalgh.

Antony Higginbotham: While discussions take place with property developers and freeholders about who will fund the cost of this, we should never forget that there are leaseholders and tenants living in these buildings, so would the Minister set out what steps have been taken to keep those people safe, as they are living in fear?

Christopher Pincher: We have put a great deal of public money aside to make sure that buildings that need remediation—and where there is no other means of making them safe quickly—are made safe through the ACM fund and the building safety fund. We will continue to work closely with the industry to make sure that other buildings are remediated and made safe. I look forward to further contributions from my hon. Friend in that regard.

Andrew Slaughter: The Minister answered a series of questions on this subject yesterday, and his answers all contained the same formulation of words: “to protect leaseholders from unaffordable costs”. Does he realise that that leaves leaseholders in limbo? What he needs to do now is either define what “unaffordable” means better than “just below the bankruptcy threshold”, as in a previous attempt by one of his colleagues, or he needs to recommit to exempting leaseholders from those costs, as well as social landlords, as there are costs not only for leaseholders but for tenants?

Christopher Pincher: As I said earlier, I cannot commit that there will be no costs that a leaseholder will ever have to pay with respect to some historical defect. We want to make sure, through the building safety fund and the ACM fund, and through our work with developers and owners, that the costs of cladding issues that confront many people and which are the subject of great debate in the House are protected for leaseholders.
The hon. Gentleman asks me about affordability, which is a very subjective matter. I want to make sure, through the funds we have made available and the work Michael Wade is doing with the sector, that people are able to get on with their lives, restore value to their properties and live as normally as possible without the spectre of costs hanging over them.

Barry Gardiner: The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government blames the building control inspectors. The building control inspectors blame the construction company. The construction company blames the developer. The developer blames the lack of proper regulation. What is clear is that no one blames the thousands of leaseholders in my constituency who are now trapped in their homes, paying for everyone else’s mistakes. So will the Minister accept that the buck stops with him to get those who are responsible to pay up, if necessary with a windfall tax on the industry, to sort out the regulation and to keep my constituents safe and solvent?

Christopher Pincher: The buck stops with those responsible for the development of these buildings, the owners and the warranty holders, and that—getting them to pay—is what we are working to make sure they do.

Gareth Bacon: I have been contacted by a number of constituents who are leaseholders in buildings under 18 metres in height that have cladding on them. They are unable to remortgage or to move home because mortgage providers are refusing to lend without the EWS1 form and the freeholder has not provided it. Will my right hon. Friend confirm whether or not an EWS1 form is required for buildings with cladding that are under 18 metres in height? If it is not, will the Government commit to reinforcing that message to mortgage providers, so that my constituents can move on with their lives?

Christopher Pincher: I can certainly confirm that buildings that are without cladding should not have an EWS1 form apply to them. EWS1 forms can be applied in other egregious circumstances, and we are working with the sector to make sure that we obviate, as far as is possible, the responsibility of leaseholders to provide  those forms. There is more work to be done to ensure that buildings can have their value restored to them and that people can move effectively without recourse to an EWS1 form.

Munira Wilson: In my local authority of Richmond upon Thames, remediation work has either been started or completed on fewer than 50% of buildings with dangerous cladding. Leaseholders living in these buildings, such as the residents of the Sandy Lane estate in my constituency, are living at constant personal and financial risk. So may I press the Minister again: will he, in the first instance, commit to covering the costs of both the assessment and the remedial work, to keep not just my constituents safe, but leaseholders across the capital and the country, and claim the money back from freeholders and developers later?

Christopher Pincher: As I said a moment ago, some 79% of all identified high-rise ACM buildings have either completed or started their remediation, and some 97% of social sector buildings have either completed or started their remediation. I know that there are specific challenges in London, which is why the Secretary of State and Lord Greenhalgh have undertaken roundtables with the Mayor, the fire brigade and the sector to ensure that the pace of acceleration is speeded up. We want to make sure that this work is done. We will continue to work with the developer community and with leaseholders to make sure that it is. Where necessary, as we have already demonstrated, public money will be spent, but in the first instance the responsibility should fall on those who built these buildings or who own them.

Huw Merriman: The Minister is quite right that the buck should stop with those who are responsible, but for the 66 leaseholders in the Landmark in Bexhill, their builder and developer have both gone out of business, and indeed the insurer is not in business either. Ultimately, while the freeholder should of course be responsible, legally they may not be. What can be done to ensure that leaseholders are not responsible and do not face years of court action or bankruptcy? Surely we need to look at an industry levy to make sure that the industry that is ultimately responsible carries the can.

Christopher Pincher: The work of Michael Wade is designed to address some of the challenges that my hon. Friend raises. In the interim—I am sorry to labour this point—that is why we put aside a very significant amount of public money to alleviate the risk to the buildings that are most at risk of fire and that are most dangerous, and where there is no other means of the owner paying, so that, fundamentally, leaseholders in those circumstances are made safe. The work of Mr Wade will focus particularly on the matters that my hon. Friend raises.

Stephen Doughty: The bottom line is that this is a national scandal. It is a UK-wide problem that is going to require UK-wide solutions, such as the Minister has described, regarding the EWS1 forms that have affected my constituents. I have been absolutely appalled by the utterly amoral behaviour of many of the developers and construction companies, raking in billions while trying to dump the costs on to leaseholders in my constituency and so many others around this country. Has the Minister actually  hauled in the likes of Redrow, Laing O’Rourke and Taylor Wimpey? If he is saying that they are ultimately responsible, what is he actually going to do to make them pay? Will it be a levy or some other measure? When will we see these innovative insurance products, because the reality is that my constituents are paying thousands in increased premiums right now?

Christopher Pincher: I understand the concerns of the hon. Gentleman and the passion with which he expresses the concerns of his constituents. We have named and shamed the owners and developers who did not step up the plate and properly and quickly remediate ACM-clad buildings. We made it clear that where we anticipate that the remediation of other buildings will not have begun by the end of this year, we will name and shame those owners and developers too. That is the work that Mr Wade is undertaking to develop the solutions that will mitigate the effect of any costs on leaseholders so as to make sure that we draw this terrible situation to a reasonably quick and satisfactory conclusion. I think that will answer some of the concerns that the hon. Gentleman has raised. We want to get on with this, and get on with it quickly, and that is the work that Mr Wade is undertaking.

Stephen Metcalfe: Although I welcome the funding that the Government have made available to remove unsafe cladding and praise the owners who have stepped up to get the process under way, there are, sadly, many owners who have not done that, leaving residents in Basildon trapped in homes they cannot sell. Further to the point made previously, what more can the Government do, other than naming and shaming, to force building owners to start the process of cladding removal and to fund it where they can?

Christopher Pincher: Local authorities have a suite of measures with respect to enforcement—fines and the like that can be brought to bear to address the concerns, or some of the concerns, that my hon. Friend raises. As I have said previously and shall say again, the work of Michael Wade, a very experienced player in the insurance sector with 40 years’ experience behind him, is to bring the sector together to find sensible and innovative solutions that will result in the costs that may fall to leaseholders being mitigated. That is the solution to this problem, not simply writing a blank cheque on behalf of taxpayers, which would send entirely the wrong message to the developers and the owners of these buildings, who are, in the first place, responsible for remediating the issues that they have caused.

Charlotte Nichols: I should make a declaration of interest that I am a leaseholder, although I am personally unaffected by the matter we are considering. However, I have heard from a number of constituents who are—or whose children are—affected. Does the Minister agree that the principle is simple? They have purchased flats in good faith that have subsequently been shown to have been built potentially dangerously. As my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) said, that extends far beyond combustible cladding. If they had bought some other item with inherent faults, they would not be expected to pay for repairs, so those leaseholders should not be liable for remedial works to make their homes safe, should they?

Christopher Pincher: Our actions are designed to ensure that the hon. Lady’s constituents and others around the country are not liable for the costs of cladding. I cannot say to her that there will not be some costs that fall on leaseholders that have some connection with defects in their properties, but we are working hard with Mr Wade and others to ensure that we have solutions to mitigate that, and we must make sure that developers and owners step up to the plate and remedy the situations that they have created. Where they cannot, thus far the Government have demonstrated that we will step in and support remediation of buildings, but we cannot and should not offer a blank cheque on behalf of taxpayers. The primary responsibility must reside with developers who built those buildings.

Robert Halfon: I welcome what my hon. Friend is doing, particularly on fairness for leaseholders, but what measures can he take to support Harlow locally to improve the quality of social housing, given the urgent need to ensure that our social housing stock is fit for purpose and we can build an even better Harlow for residents, for the 21st century and beyond?

Christopher Pincher: My right hon. Friend campaigns for Harlow possibly like no other colleague campaigns for any constituency in the country. He was integral to our work on space standards for upbuilding and ensuring that buildings have light in all habitable rooms. In answer to his question, I point him to our affordable homes programme, under which £12.2 billion will deliver 180,000 affordable new homes in the next five years, and to our reforms to the housing revenue account, which will allow local councils more easily to build social homes if they wish. Harlow may wish to pursue those two endeavours.

Lilian Greenwood: I have been contacted by numerous leaseholders in my constituency who, through no fault of their own, are worried sick because they are being told that they need to pay thousands of pounds for essential fire safety works, including the removal of unsafe cladding. Some are vulnerable or on low incomes and all fear losing their home or being trapped in a financial nightmare. I think that the Minister agrees with the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee that leaseholders should not be required to pay for the remediation of historical building safety defects, but what is his advice to my constituents, who are receiving enormous service charge bills that they cannot afford and should not be asked to pay?

Christopher Pincher: I entirely sympathise with the situation that the hon. Lady’s constituents and those of other right hon. and hon. colleagues face. We are entirely cognisant of the fact that individual legal contracts between owners and leaseholders allow owners to pass on costs to their leaseholders. That is one of the reasons we invited Michael Wade to do the work that he is doing. We will work as fast as we can to ensure that the solutions that we are working through are available to mitigate any costs that leaseholders may fear they have to pay. That is also why we will continue to make public funds available, as we have through the ACM fund and the building safety fund to remediate buildings that are most in need and for which there is no other means of quick and easy remediation.

Caroline Nokes: Leaseholders are not just living in limbo. As we have heard this afternoon, they are living in fear. They are paying over the odds in insurance to live in fear, and in some cases they are paying well over £1,000 a year for waking watch charges. I recognise that my hon. Friend has done an enormous amount of work on that, but may I please impress upon him the urgency? At this economic time, people simply cannot afford those charges on an ongoing basis.

Christopher Pincher: I entirely accept the points made by my right hon. Friend. We will continue to work with the insurance sector on the insurance challenges that leaseholders face, with the financial services sector on the challenges with mortgage costs that leaseholders face, and with developers to make sure that remediation takes place swiftly and effectively, so that this problem is resolved.

Stephen Timms: Will the Minister set out much more clearly the criteria for the much-needed grant funding? Residents at Waterside Park in my constituency are worried that their management company wants to apply to the building safety fund, even though the development recently received a B1 rating so remediation is not required. Would such an application be appropriate?

Christopher Pincher: I point the right hon. Gentleman to the specific criteria in the building safety fund, which was published earlier this year. As I have said and will say again, we will work with Michael Wade to make sure that there are solutions to what is a very complicated issue. There may be more than one element to the package of solutions to resolve this challenge. I do not want to give a running commentary to the House on the progress of that work, but it is ongoing, and we hope that we can make some further and concrete announcement soon to give succour to the points made by the right hon. Gentleman and reassurance to others in the House.

Scott Benton: I welcome the £1 billion the Government have made available through the building safety fund for the removal of unsafe non-ACM cladding. Is my right hon. Friend able to update the House with regard to the number of applications to the fund and how quickly those can be reviewed and processed so that the work can finally be done?

Christopher Pincher: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He campaigns hard and long for his constituents in Blackpool South. We have now advanced more than 100 applications and the first payments for work will be made imminently. I am confident that the full allocation of £1 billion that the Chancellor made available in the Budget earlier this year will be made by the end of this financial year, for which the money was made available.

Lyn Brown: Hundreds of constituents are affected by safety problems, from social housing tenants in Canning Town to leaseholders in Stratford. Those in the Prime Minister’s flagship Olympic park have had the Olympic dream turned into a nightmare. This crisis is getting worse. Just two weeks ago, four more blocks were placed on waking watch. They have been told there is a risk of fire, which increases their fear. They are trapped in unsellable homes and there is a dread that,  at the end of all this, there is going to be an unaffordable bill for them to pay. Why can the Government not understand that this continuing uncertainty and punishing of leaseholders is plain wrong and that the notion of affordability is massively contentious and concerning? Perhaps we can have a meeting.

Christopher Pincher: I entirely understand the concern of the hon. Lady and her constituents. The Government are working hard and at pace to remediate these buildings and resolve the issues that her constituents face. I am very happy to meet her to discuss the specific issues in her constituency, but she can be assured that I have every sympathy with the plight of her constituents. We are working very hard, very quickly to make sure those issues are resolved.

Neil O'Brien: Will my right hon. Friend update the House on what progress is being made in removing both ACM and non-ACM cladding in the social housing sector?

Christopher Pincher: Something like 97% of buildings with ACM cladding in the social sector have been remediated or have remediation under way. Of course, we continue to work on the remediation of non-ACM cladding, and we will work with local authorities to make sure that that is done as swiftly as possible. Another Member previously asked me if I would encourage housing associations to work more swiftly to remediate their properties—I think it was my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers)—and I said to her that, yes, we will. I say to my hon. Friend: yes, we will work harder with social housing operators to make sure that their properties are remediated.

Stephen Hammond: Like so many colleagues across the House, I have had many constituents write to me about the problems they are suffering with cladding, remediation and getting some answers from both finance and insurers, so I will not repeat all of what has been said before. Could I just say to my right hon. Friend that I have an outstanding meeting request with his colleague Lord Greenhalgh, and I wonder whether he might facilitate that for me?
I heard the Minister’s answer a moment ago to the question about whether or not the Government would look at the amendment from the House of Lords, and I listened carefully to his answer. Can he tell me whether or not the Government are sympathetic to the amendment, and whether or not the Government might bring forward their own amendment that would be in order?

Christopher Pincher: My hon. Friend encourages me to facilitate a meeting with Lord Greenhalgh, and I am happy to try to assist him in that regard. Regardless of the rather byzantine practices in the other place, I trust that we can make that happen for him.
My hon. Friend asks whether we have sympathy with the amendment sent down to us from the House of Lords. I understand what the amendment is trying to achieve. I believe it is defective, but of course we will look at it from the point of view that another Chamber in this Parliament has sent us an important amendment, and we will give it appropriate consideration.

Florence Eshalomi: I receive emails from constituents in Vauxhall on an almost daily basis about this cladding scandal. My constituent who lives at Beregaria Court on Kennington Park Road emailed me yesterday and said:
“I am a leaseholder and do not own any other part of the building, I had no say in how this was built, until recently I didn’t know what cladding was, have just been working and saving for years and putting it all into 1-bedroom apartment that now is worth nothing.”
Such constituents bought their homes in good faith, so I have one question to the Minister: do the Government agree with me that in principle it is wrong to make leaseholders pay for these bills?

Christopher Pincher: I pay tribute to the hon. Lady. I know she campaigns hard for her constituents, and we have had many exchanges across the Chamber about the concerns that her constituents have raised with her. We entirely agree that it is not right that leaseholders who have done the right thing—who have invested in a property or have chosen a place to call home—should find themselves burdened by costs for which they are not responsible. That is why we are working with the financial services sector—Michael Wade is working on this—to try to make sure that any costs respecting historical defects of buildings are obviated. She will understand when I say that the taxpayer should not be held responsible for an open-ended cheque. We have already spent over £1.5 billion of public money to ameliorate those buildings most in need of it. The fundamental responsibility must lie with developers, but I entirely understand the point of view that the hon. Lady has raised on behalf of her constituents. Leaseholders who have done the right thing should not fall liable to unfair costs.

David Johnston: On behalf of my constituents who are affected by and anxious about this situation, can I add my voice to the cause that leaseholders should not have to pay for these charges? They have done nothing wrong. Can my right hon. Friend assure me that he will push lenders not to require the EWS1 form if it is not really needed, and also push the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, which is training 2,000 other assessors, to deploy those in the areas of the country that most need them? If they are too thinly spread across the country, it will not do enough to reduce the delays.

Christopher Pincher: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his thoughtful contribution. Yes, we will continue to work with the lending sector to ensure that the EWS1 form is fully and properly understood and is not misused, or that its use does not bleed across in a way that is inappropriate. We will of course roll out the 2,000 assessors as quickly as we possibly can. I will take on board his point and consider how those assessors can be best and most effectively deployed.

Hilary Benn: For the past hour and a half, the Minister has had to listen to testimony about the nightmare that all our constituents, including mine in Leeds city centre, are living with. He knows that leaseholders simply do not have the billions that are still required to fix the problem. He knows that without funding from elsewhere, they will continue to live in unsafe homes, as waking watch and insurance bills mount. He knows that some of them will eventually lose their homes,  because they will be made bankrupt by those costs. He knows how much anguish this nightmare is causing them. He also knows that an answer must be found, but I think the question that leaseholders who have been listening to this urgent question would like to put to him is: when will the Government come forward with that answer?

Christopher Pincher: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. The question he puts is a fair one, and the way in which he puts the issues he raised was entirely reasonable and fair. We will bring forward proposals as quickly as we can, to ensure that costs to leaseholders are mitigated. He will understand that this is a complicated issue that tracks back over political generations. To unpick that challenge, and to ensure that remediation is done effectively, that liability falls where it should, that the taxpayer is not subjected to unfunded commitment and that leaseholders have the right thing done by them is a challenge, but one that we are rising to and one for which we will bring forward proposals as quickly as we can.

Bob Neill: The Minister may well have seen on Sunday on the television my constituent Ritu Saha talking not for the first time about the agony that she and her neighbours in Northpoint in Bromley are going through, for all the reasons that have just been set out by the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) and many others.
Of course there are complications in sorting out liability and dealing with some of the technical issues of remediation. I entirely accept that, and the work being done, but will the Minister recognise that the moral  point is not complicated? At the end of the day, leaseholders who have done nothing to create this situation and who relied in good faith on a regulation that ultimately Government—of whatever description—own should not be out of pocket for whatever reason. If that takes more money, will he at least give the commitment that where it is a failure of regulation and no fault of the leaseholder, they will not ultimately have to pick up the tab?

Christopher Pincher: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I have heard the testimony of Ritu Saha and others in his constituency. I understand the point that he makes. I hope that in answering him quickly, he will not in any way think that I am diminishing that point, because it has also been made by colleagues across the House. We will work at pace to ensure that leaseholders who through no fault of their own find themselves in this terrible situation are not subjected to unfair costs. Costs ought to fall in the first instance to the developers and owners—and their warranty providers—who built the properties. The Government have set aside funds in this financial year to support those buildings that require immediate remediation and where there is no other means of so doing. We will continue to keep the situation under review, but we will work with the sector to ensure that remediation is done by those where responsibility lies.

Rosie Winterton: I thank the Minister for his very comprehensive answers.
Virtual participation in proceedings concluded (Order 4 June)

Point of Order

Charles Walker: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have just witnessed an elderly lady who was peacefully protesting with a handful of other people be arrested and carried spread-eagle to a police van just outside the precincts of the House of Commons. This is a disgrace. It is un-British, and it is unconstitutional. This Government and our Prime Minister need to end these injustices now. Madam Deputy Speaker, will you bring the Prime Minister and/or the Home Secretary here today to sort this out? She was an old lady robbed of her dignity for having the courage to protest about having her fundamental rights and those of my constituents and others removed.

Rosie Winterton: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. I can see that this is an extremely distressing situation. I shall of course ensure that Mr Speaker is aware of his comments, but there are also Ministers here who I am sure will ensure that the hon. Gentleman’s very strong views on the incident are fed back.
I shall suspend the House for three minutes, to allow for the safe exit and entry of Members.
Sitting suspended.

Bill Presented

Telecommunications (Security) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Matt Warman, supported by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Secretary Dominic Raab, Secretary Priti Patel, Michael Gove and Secretary Alok Sharma, presented a Bill to make provision about the security of public electronic communications networks and public electronic communications services.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 216) with explanatory notes (Bill 216-EN).

National Health Service Reserve Staff

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

Alan Mak: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to establish a system of reserve National Health Service staff; and for connected purposes.
The coronavirus pandemic is the biggest challenge that our health service has faced since its creation 70 years ago. Our inspirational doctors, nurses, paramedics, and clinicians of all disciplines have risen to that challenge, alongside our NHS leaders and non-clinical staff across the country. Those include Mark Cubbon and his team at the Queen Alexandra Hospital in Portsmouth, and Dr Raj Laly, a GP from my constituency of Havant, who also both contributed to the research for this Bill.
Supplementing that immense effort is an army of volunteers, operating on a scale not seen in this country since perhaps the Women’s Land Army of the second world war. As the coronavirus outbreak grew, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care issued his clarion call for volunteers to help the NHS, and the public responded with great energy and in huge numbers. More than 750,000 people, from all walks of life, signed up to become NHS volunteer responders. As of today, they have collectively completed more than 1 million tasks, from shopping and collecting prescriptions, to driving people to hospital and telephone befriending them. I am sure the whole House will join me in thanking everybody who came forward to support their friends, colleagues, neighbours, family and communities since the outbreak began.
Those selfless people build on a strong tradition of volunteering that has existed in the health service for many decades. There are thought to be around 80,000 volunteers across all acute trusts in England, contributing more than 13 million hours of volunteering every year. The true figures are likely to be much higher. Those dedicated individuals carry out hundreds of roles, including volunteering on wards, providing administrative support, fundraising, organising patient participation groups, helping patients to find their way around hospitals, supporting relatives of the sick and picking up medicines from pharmacies.
One lesson we must learn from the coronavirus outbreak, and an opportunity we must seize, is ensuring that we retain the skills, experience and commitments of both our existing base of volunteers, and those people who have come forward since the pandemic began. To achieve those goals, we should create the NHS reserves—a new, but recognisable and trusted NHS brand that will fit effectively into the existing NHS family. The NHS reserves will be a new uniformed standing reserve of clinical and non-clinical volunteers, who can be called up to support our hospitals, GP surgeries, pharmacies and other healthcare providers whenever more help is needed. That might be during public health emergencies, seasonal increases in demand, or critical incidents such as terrorist attacks or major accidents. The NHS reserves brand will also help to formalise and give greater status and recognition to the many existing health service volunteers, and provide a way to retain and use the skills of recently departed or retired staff.
The House will know that our country already has a proud history of exceptional reserve services. They are founded on dedicated and skilled people who, often at a moment’s notice, rush to the scene of an emergency, give up their spare time to serve their community, or bravely defend our country. Those reservists are the very best of us. For example, the armed forces reserves not only contributed large deployments to Afghanistan and Iraq, but they provided around 15% of all the military personnel who made the London 2012 Olympics such a resounding success. The Police Special Constabulary is made up of more than 10,000 fully trained volunteers who work alongside full-time officers with the same uniform and equivalent powers. The Fire and Rescue Service has its well-known system of retained firefighters who respond to emergencies around the clock. In fact, the NHS is the only one of our major emergency services not to have a formal national reservist structure. The new NHS reserves that I propose would change that for the better, embodying many of the characteristics that have made our other reserve services so successful.
Every NHS reservist would wear the same uniform and have the same equal status as their regular health service counterparts. That will strengthen their role in hospitals and clinical settings, and give confidence to patients and staff. Rightly, when it comes to healthcare, patients will expect the very best treatments and the highest standards from our NHS. Therefore, every NHS reservist would receive appropriate training, and anyone working in a clinical discipline would be vetted and have to maintain the same up-to-date qualifications as their full-time colleagues. Professional bodies such as the General Medical Council, and charities such as St John Ambulance, would play a key role in that, given their expertise.
In practical terms, reservists in clinical disciplines could support or perform a range of roles, such as vaccinators, therapists, triage nurses or telemedicine providers, or help with continuing healthcare. They could also provide general cover in non-specialist clinical roles if private sector staff supply agencies, locums or staff banks were not available to help at short notice. On the non-clinical side, reservist roles could include drivers, electricians, logistics specialists, IT experts and communications professionals, and could also include and formalise the many hundreds of other non-clinical tasks that hospital volunteers currently carry out daily across our country.
Every year, around 75,000 clinical staff leave the NHS. They are people with relevant skills who could help at times of national or local emergency. Therefore, the NHS reserves would also offer a route for experienced staff to continue helping the health service after stepping down from paid employment. That would build on the important and valuable work already done by the General Medical Council and the Nursing and Midwifery Council that has allowed around 25,000 doctors and nurses to temporarily rejoin their registers to help in the fight against coronavirus.
I anticipate that, just like our other successful reserve services, NHS reservists will supplement, not supplant, any roles currently undertaken by NHS employees, while offering many other benefits to the health service.  To make the NHS reserve system function well, we will also need a new national reservists register, where the health service can capture details about volunteers and their skills, possibly using the NHS app as one channel. This central source of information will be accessible to NHS trusts, hospital chief executives and other healthcare bodies around the country, enabling the NHS to know who can be called up, including those with expertise who are not currently employed by the health service. This would be a useful resource in its own right, and it is not one that the health service currently has access to.
The pandemic has shown just how much people love our NHS and how ready they are to support the health service when times are tough. I am grateful that the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care is supporting my Bill and has agreed to launch a pilot in all seven NHS regions across England. I thank him, his advisers and his Department for their help over many months. Some Members have already signed up to become parliamentary champions for the NHS reservists, and I welcome others who would like to promote the NHS reserves in their constituencies.
I strongly believe that we have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to harness the passion, skills and commitment of those who have already volunteered for the NHS and those who would like to do so in the future. By launching the NHS reserves, we will be creating a positive long-term legacy after coronavirus that will benefit our health service in every community for many years to come. I commend this Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Alan Mak, Sir Iain Duncan Smith, Sir Graham Brady, Jeremy Hunt, Damian Green, Greg Clark, Joy Morrissey, James Cartlidge, Kevin Hollinrake, Tom Tugendhat, Danny Kruger and Andrew Griffith present the Bill.
Alan Mak accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 12 March 2021, and to be printed (Bill 217).

Private International Law (Implementation of Agreements) Bill [Lords] (Programme) (No. 2)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
That the following provisions shall apply to the Private International Law (Implementation of Agreements) Bill [Lords] for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 2 September 2020 (Private International Law (Implementation of Agreements) Bill [Lords] (Programme)):

Consideration of Lords Message

(1) Proceedings on the Lords Message shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.

Subsequent stages

(2) Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put.
(3) The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.—(David T. C. Davies.)
Question agreed to.

Private International Law (Implementation of Agreements) Bill [Lords]

Consideration of Lords message

After Clause 1 - Implementation of other agreements on private international law

Alex Chalk: I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendments 1A and 1B.

Rosie Winterton: With this it will be convenient to consider the Government motion to agree to Lords amendments 4A to 4E.

Alex Chalk: Private international law, sometimes known as conflict of laws, comprises rules applied by courts and parties involved in legal disputes for dealing with cases raising cross-border issues. The rules generally apply in the context of civil law, including specialist areas such as commercial, insolvency and family law. PIL typically includes rules to establish whether a court has jurisdiction to hear a claim that has cross-border elements, which country’s law applies to such a claim, and whether a judgment of a foreign court should be recognised and enforced. However, it can also encompass rules on co-operation between courts and other public authorities in different countries involved in dealing with cross-border issues, such as service of documents, taking of evidence abroad or even establishing efficient procedures to assist with the resolution of cross-border disputes.
These agreements are important. They are the sort of thing that a member of the public, or a business trading across borders may not know they need until a difficulty or a disagreement arises. Without these agreements, cross-border legal disputes can become expensive and difficult to resolve. With them, the path to resolution is clearer and smoother.

Bob Neill: I am very grateful to the Minister for giving way so early on in his speech. As he will know, I have to chair the Justice Committee in a few moments, but may I thank him for stressing the importance of this not just for the big financial institutions and businesses of this country, but for individuals? Will he confirm that, in accepting the amendments, we have managed to achieve an improvement to the Bill through the very constructive approach for which he in particular has been responsible? Will he also confirm that, as well as the Bill, it is the Government’s firm intention to seek to join the Lugano convention on the enforcement of judgments and other international co-operation at the earliest possible date, so that we do not have any gap post the end of the implementation period, and to move on to the other international conventions—Hague and others?

Alex Chalk: I thank the Chairman of the Justice Committee for his remarks and for the contribution he has made throughout the passage of the Bill. I am quite confident that we are in a better place because we have looked at it constructively. That is, in large part, because  of the contributions he has made, together with others. Yes, this is about individuals as well as businesses, and yes, we want to use this as the vehicle to get into Lugano, which will be good for the rule of law, good for individuals, good for certainty and good for businesses.
I was making the point that these agreements mean the path to resolution is clearer and smoother. Just by way of a couple of examples, these agreements can help a family where relationships break down and one spouse moves abroad, and they can help to sort out arrangements for custody, access and maintenance in the best interests of the children. These agreements can provide a framework for a small business to seek redress when left out of pocket by a supplier based in another country.

Chris Matheson: The Minister is explaining the scope of the Bill and I am trying to understand it. We all represent constituents and I have a couple of constituents’ cases, for example one where there is a dispute over a property in Cyprus and another where a constituent was involved in an assault in Italy. They both relate to issues that are not cross-border, but relate specifically to incidents or disputes in those countries. Are those kinds of cases covered by the Bill, or does the Bill look at issues only where there are cross-border affairs that need to be resolved?

Alex Chalk: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for asking that question. The Bill is more likely to affect the former example, rather than the latter. On the specific issue of a criminal offence, that is likely to fall outwith the Bill. There is, of course, a regime for cross-border co-operation in that regard, but that normally sits outside private international law agreements, which tend to be about family issues—whether you have maintenance and enforcement, and which agreements are going to be upheld by which courts—and commercial agreements, for example, between a widget manufacturer in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency and a supplier in another part of the world. This relates to agreements that are already in existence which we want to roll over, but also creates the framework for us to agree and implement future agreements.
The Bill contains two substantive clauses. The first ensures the continued implementation of three Hague conventions on various aspects of private international law that are currently implemented—at least until the end of the transition period—under the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020. The second concerns the implementation of further PIL agreements—the point that I was just making—by secondary legislation. This clause was removed from the Bill in the Lords on Report, but was returned by this House in Committee back in October. Although clause 1 is not subject to the amendments in front of us today, the need to have these provisions in force by 31 December creates an imperative to resolve the outstanding issues without delay.
Let me update the House on the Bill’s return to the House of Lords, where the Government made a series of amendments to aspects of the delegated powers in the light of the observations that had been made there. Those amendments were accepted by the other place last Thursday, and I am seeking that this place also agrees to this amended version of the power to ensure that the  Bill can be enforced by the end of the transition period. Before I turn to the detail of the changes, let me say that these amendments were made after careful and respectful reflection on the views expressed across the House during the Bill’s passage through this House, and following extensive consultation with peers who had previously challenged the approach taken to delegated powers in the Bill. We recognised that there were peers who had significant experience and expertise in this area, and it was right to take their views carefully into account.
These amendments focus on aspects of the power that have attracted most attention—and, in some quarters, concern—in previous debates. We were pleased to acknowledge the observations of the noble and learned Lord Pannick, who described the Government’s amendments as significant and “constructive”.
I turn to the Lords amendments, which fall into three categories, the first of which is in respect of criminal offences. Lords amendment 4A limits the power so that it cannot be used to create criminal offences punishable by prison sentence. Although private international law agreements generally do not require contracting parties to create criminal offences, there are exceptions. Typically, where there are criminal offences, they are limited in scope. A good example is the current implementation of the Lugano convention in Northern Ireland, which was referred to just a few moments ago by the Chair of the Justice Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill). This includes an offence that applies where a person who is obliged to pay maintenance under a maintenance decision of a relevant foreign court subject to recognition and enforcement in Northern Ireland fails to update a Northern Ireland court with changes to their address.
This offence is included in the implementation, so the approach to enforcement is consistent whether the maintenance decision was made by a court in Northern Ireland or a relevant foreign court. The Lords amendment would still allow this offence and others like it to be implemented under the delegated power. However, it would require more serious criminal offences—specifically those punishable by imprisonment—to be implemented via primary legislation and the additional scrutiny that that entails. That is the proper thing to do. If we as the state require people to be imprisoned and have their freedoms taken away from them, it is important that Parliament considers that with the utmost care, although I should be clear that the UK has no plans to join an agreement that would require the creation of an offence punishable by imprisonment.
For the sake of completeness, it is important to note that introducing criminal offences by secondary legislation is not of itself unusual. Research by the University of Glasgow recently found that the majority of all new criminal offences are created by secondary legislation, although it is right to say that the authors of that paper did deprecate that. That is the first point, about criminal offences.
The second set of amendments—amendments 1A, 1B, 4C, 4D and 4E—add a five-year sunset period to the regulation-making power that is extendable on a recurring basis by affirmative statutory instrument. Essentially, this reviewable sunset requires the Government to consult on and get parliamentary approval for their private international law strategy every five years. The need to come back to Parliament every five years—if  the Government still consider this a necessary power—does not just provide Parliament with additional scrutiny; the mere existence of the review process will influence how Governments approach using the power and encourage them properly to consider whether the power has met its original policy intent.

Jonathan Djanogly: As things stand, is it the Minister’s intention that there will be only one five-year period—that in five years’ time the Government will drop it? Or is his current intention that it will be extended if other things come up?

Alex Chalk: The legislation is clear that it can be extended more than once, but the real point is that parliamentarians will want to be satisfied that that process is not entirely a rubber-stamping exercise and that, first, Governments of any stripe will be actively required to turn their attention to whether it is the proper thing to do—and they will be, because of the consultation requirements in the statute—and secondly, that Parliament will be sufficiently notified of the Government’s intention to do so that it is well placed to marshal whatever opposition it thinks is appropriate.
All of that feeds into the next points that I wish to make, but before I do so I should say that the Government have been clear about how they want to use the power over the next few years, and that includes in respect of implementing the Lugano convention—or, indeed, alternatives with Norway, Iceland and Switzerland, should our application be declined—as well as, subject to consultation, the Singapore convention on mediation and the 2019 Hague judgments project. I pause to mention that the Singapore convention has no more doughty champion in this place than my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell).
If the Government ask Parliament to extend the power in five years’ time, they will need to make their case again and have the relevant regulations approved in both Houses. In any view, the sunset amendment represents a significant concession by the Government. It takes account of the concerns that have been powerfully expressed, while still retaining a proper measure of the flexibility and agility that we seek—manifestly in the national interest, we contend—to support the UK’s long-term private international law strategy which, I pause to note, strengthens the international rules-based order.
Finally, on the third of the three points to which I referred, Lords amendment 4B adds a requirement for the Government to consult prior to making any regulations under the Bill, whether those regulations concern the implementation of a private international law agreement or propose to extend the sunset period—the point I just addressed with my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly). The amendment puts on the face of the Bill the commitments that we have already made from the Dispatch Box on engagement with Parliament and other stakeholders. Although there will be times when a wide-ranging and broad consultation is appropriate—for instance, when the UK is seeking to join a new private international law agreement—there will be other times when the power is used to make minor technical and procedural updates to agreements, such as to update the name of a foreign court referred to in an existing agreement.
The requirement to consult applies across the piece but allows for a proportionate approach to different issues. Different instruments will require different approaches and, no doubt, different consultees, and the consultees who might be most appropriate to offer a view on an instrument about family law will not necessarily be the same as those who might add most value in respect of an instrument that deals with commercial disputes. As with any statutory obligation to consult, there is a requirement to take proper account of the representations received, and I can give an undertaking that the Government will meet that requirement. In the explanatory memorandum that must accompany any statutory instrument laid before this House, we will provide—I hope this will provide some comfort to my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon—a thorough and detailed explanation of the consultation that has taken place, setting out not only those whom we have consulted but a fair and balanced summary of the views expressed.
In conclusion, I restate the point about the importance of resolving this issue today. Clause 1 needs to be in force before the end of the transition period. It is plainly in the interests of this country to avoid an extended back and forth, and the Bill represents a pragmatic approach that respects the misgivings that have been expressed while ensuring that Governments retain the agility and flexibility that they need to enter into vital international agreements. I urge right hon. and hon. Members to accept this compromise as an appropriate and balanced approach.

Rosie Winterton: I call the shadow Minister, Alex Cunningham.

Alex Cunningham: Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker—from one Alex to another.
When I stood at the Dispatch Box some weeks ago for the Bill’s Second Reading, I made Labour’s position very clear: we absolutely understand and appreciate the need for the Bill. The Minister was rightly wholehearted in his endorsement of the Bill and provided us with some excellent examples of how it will work and what it will mean. He even mentioned that it will apply to widgets. Perhaps when he does his summing up, he can tell me what a widget is.
In a post-Brexit world, it is essential that individuals, families and businesses have access to fair and clear legal mechanisms for dealing with international disputes. This has never been contentious and, from the very beginning, Labour made its support for clause 1 of the Bill clearly known. Labour welcomes the principle of the Bill because it maintains and perhaps enhances our legal co-operation across jurisdictions and provides certainty and fairness for those involved in cross-border litigation. In a post-Brexit world, this is essential to maintaining a prosperous economy, protecting our legal system and providing for families and individual claimants engaged in cross-border disputes. International agreements provide clear and reciprocal mechanisms for dealing with international disputes. In doing so, they are crucial in protecting our country’s proud reputation as the world’s centre for resolving complex disputes while offering us a competitive advantage in finance, business and trade.
This is also a Bill that will affect human beings and human stories. A wide range of family law issues can lead to cross-border disputes—for example, when one partner takes a child abroad and there is a disagreement about parenting arrangements, when making arrangements for divorce in similar circumstances, and on issues of abduction and adoption. Over the years, many of us have seen examples of that in our constituencies, when a child has been removed from this country against the will of another parent, and yet we have struggled, even with the existing laws, to resolve those sorts of disputes. Of course, this is also about keeping our citizens safe. We must ensure that we have robust international agreements so that justice can be done.
On Second Reading and in Committee, we were content to give our full support to clause 1, which gives effect to international treaties in domestic law through primary legislation, because we recognised that it is both necessary and welcome. It is hoped that these provisions, which affect the rules on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments overseas, will play a crucial role in building a strong economy and provide some certainty for families in often desperately trying circumstances.
Labour welcomes the principle of the Bill, but we remain of the opinion that there was no need for clause 2. Attempts by those in the other place to persuade the Government to ditch the unnecessary and, some would say, dangerous provisions covered by clause 2 were successful. Sadly, their decision was not appreciated by the Government and, despite the pleas and arguments put forward by their lordships, the Government felt compelled to reinstate the clause when it came back to the Commons. The House will be aware that despite the clear and sensible arguments of the Opposition and others, ultimately the Government are the Government and use their majority to prosecute their will, and, with no surprise, succeeded in reinstating clause 2.

Chris Matheson: My hon. Friend is right that the Government have the right to push through their agenda even in the face of well-meant advice either from the Opposition or the lordships’ House. I wonder whether there are any other independent expressions of concern, perhaps from the legal system, that also concur with the view that perhaps clause 2, as it was, was not the best way forward.

Alex Cunningham: Yes, there are many organisations, including the Bar Council, and I will develop that point later in my speech. It is important to recognise that this is not a case of the people sitting down the other end of the corridor making things up on the hoof. They were doing it on the basis of expertise and the opinions of others.
It was not the end of the matter after the Commons sent the Bill back to their lordships. Their lordships were intent on their ambition and refused to let the matter drop. Happily, that situation has been improved somewhat in recent days. I will return to the message from their lordships quite soon. Before I do that, I am happy to reiterate our support for the Bill’s provisions in clause 1, which give effect to key international conventions in our domestic law. That is very welcome on these Benches.
The 1996 Hague convention on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition, enforcement and co-operation in respect of parental responsibility and measures for the protection of children is critical to improve the protection of children in cross-border disputes, and I have mentioned some of the difficult cases that some of us have learned of in the past.
The 2005 Hague convention on choice of court agreements aims to ensure the efficacy of exclusive choice of court agreements between parties to international commercial transactions, which is another important element covered in the Bill. We support this incorporation into domestic law as such clauses are commonly provided for in high-value commercial disputes. The 2007 Hague convention on the international recovery of child support and other forms of family maintenance provides for the international recovery of child support and spousal maintenance. Again, that is very welcome and just illustrates how we make law in this country, in this place, that applies directly to the lives of families and, of course, of children. It is abundantly clear that this is a positive move, which will help to ensure that parents pay their fair share when providing for their children.
Labour wholeheartedly welcomes the implementation of these agreements not only because of the legal certainty that they provide, but because of the way that they are being implemented by primary legislation debated on the Floor of this House. They are good provisions, and we all hope that more certainty can be offered in other areas of cross-jurisdictional disputes.
As I said on Second Reading, it was a different matter when it came to clause 2. We felt that we could not support any attempts by the Government to reintroduce clause 2, which would allow for the future agreements to be implemented through secondary legislation only. As we heard in the other place, this provision would be of profound constitutional significance. Labour was concerned, and we remain concerned, that the reintroduction of clause 2 in its entirety would represent an extension of the power of the Executive into uncharted territory, amending the convention that international legal agreements that change our domestic law can be given force only by an Act of Parliament.
I remind Ministers that the House of Lords Constitution Committee said that the change would represent
“a significant new power that would change the way this type of international agreement is implemented in UK law and how Parliament scrutinises them.”
The House of Lords Constitution Committee and the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee both considered whether the secondary legislating power should be granted and both were very clear that it should not. Indeed, the Constitution Committee stated:
“If the balance between the executive and Parliament is to be altered in respect of international agreements, it should be in favour of greater parliamentary scrutiny and not more executive power.”
On Second Reading, I quoted Lord Mance, the chair of the Lord Chancellor’s Advisory Committee on Private International Law and perhaps the pre-eminent expert in this area of law. He told the other place:
“Opinion is almost universally against Clause 2.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 17 June 2020; Vol. 803, c. 228.]
The two Committees that have reported have categorically condemned it. I also quoted Lord Pannick, another pre-eminent constitutional lawyer. He argued that there is
“no justification for allowing the law of this country to be changed by statutory instrument in this context without full parliamentary debate. That is because important policy decisions might arise in this context both on whether to implement an international agreement in domestic law and on the manner in which such an agreement is to be implemented.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 17 June 2020; Vol. 803, c. 2224.]
The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee also offered a stern warning about the unprecedented nature of this constitutional change. It said:
“For the first time there will exist a power to implement international general agreements on private international law by statutory instrument, thereby obviating the need for an Act of Parliament. This will be so regardless of the nature or importance of the agreement.”
The Minister has discussed that with us this afternoon, and made clear the Government’s concessions in this area.

Chris Matheson: My hon. Friend is outlining one of the concerns that I raised earlier, which is about wider concerns raised by experienced legal sources. There may be—and I might ask the Minister to comment on this later—inconsistencies between agreements between the UK and one country and agreements with another country that are achieved through secondary legislation. If the agreement with that particular country is different, citizens will be treated differently depending on the terms of a particular statutory instrument.

Alex Cunningham: My hon. Friend is correct. That could lead to considerable confusion in the system. What happens if a family member is moved from country to country? They will be subject to different jurisdictions and different laws, and it would be all the more complicated and difficult for resolutions to be made.
There appeared to be intense opposition to what the Government were trying to do, and it was not just from the other place; it was coming from all over the place. The Bar Council, in its helpful briefing, was highly critical of this new constitutional grab. It was somewhat concerned that the power in clause 2 to proceed by delegated legislation was very broad, and that, for instance, it enabled the appropriate national authority to make regulations for the purpose of or in connection with implementing any international agreement. To give effect to international treaties in domestic law is not a rubber-stamping exercise. The effect, implementation and enforcement of such provisions require robust debate, and we must protect the parliamentary scrutiny of such important legal provisions at all costs.
The Government attempted to raise arguments as to why that new constitutional measure would be necessary, but all of them have failed to convince. The first argument was that the new provision would allow the Government to implement each new international agreement without unnecessary delay, but there is no evidence to suggest that fast-track legislation is required. The implementation of international agreements in the past has often taken years, and there is nothing to suggest that implementing them through primary legislation would cause any difficulties without having to subject legislation to normal parliamentary scrutiny.
The Government raised the 2007 Lugano convention, which deals with the jurisdiction and enforcement of judgments between members of the European Union. The Government’s arguments appear to be that there may be only a short period in which to legislate to give effect to the Lugano provision at the end of the transition period. That is not an argument for developing that new Executive power more generally. The Government have not provided for clause 2 in relation to Lugano but, as the Chairman of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), said, there appears to be some movement on that, and I look forward to clarification from the Minister.
The Government also claimed that the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 allowed for sufficient parliamentary scrutiny. Once again, that argument does not carry much weight. As a result of clause 2 as originally drafted, the Government would be able to give force to model law without being subject to the scrutiny mechanism under the 2010 Act, which does not allow for the amendment of treaties or consideration of measures to implement them. That is a red herring, and the argument unravelled when subjected to expert scrutiny.
Even some of the Government’s own Members were rightly worried. It is worth putting on the record again a statement by the Conservative peer, Lord Garnier:
“Unquestionably, the provisions in Clause 2, which give the Executive the extensive future law-making powers originally in the Bill, have been shown to be constitutionally awkward and unwelcome”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 29 June 2020; Vol. 804, c. 483.]
I think that the Minister has begun to address those issues.
Sadly, the Lords asked the Government to drop clause 2. The Government used their majority. A Conservative peer asked that them not to do so, but that is what they chose to do, so clause 2 was reinstated. As I have said, their lordships were not about to roll over, and they were determined that the Government should not get away with a smash-and-grab raid on our constitution and the way in which we do business in this country. It is no good at all our trumpeting a return of control of our own affairs—control for our Parliament to make decisions on the issues that affect our country and citizens—only for Parliament to surrender that control to an overbearing Executive who appear to be seeking shortcuts to creating legislation and regulations. That is not what the British people handed the Government a majority to do. I do not think they would tolerate the sidelining of MPs they elected to serve them. More importantly, we want to ensure that laws in this land are not just fit for purpose, but have been subjected to the widest possible scrutiny. Opposition Members have always been opposed to the power in clause 2 to implement future international agreements by secondary legislation, but we recognise that change to that clause can be made.
As I mentioned, both the House of Lords Constitution Committee and the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee considered whether the power in clause 2 was appropriate, and both made it clear that it was not. None the less, Labour welcomes amendments 1A and 1B, tabled in the other place, which act as a safeguard to clause 2, as reintroduced here. It was good to hear the Minister speak with some affection for those in the other place, and their expertise and skills. Although Labour Members remain disappointed that clause 2 has  been reintroduced, the Government have heeded some of the Opposition’s concern by agreeing to the five-year sunset clause to clause 2.
Let me turn to amendments 4A and 4B. Labour also welcomes the amendment to remove the power from the Bill to create criminal offences that are punishable by imprisonment. For obvious reasons, this is a sensitive issue and it is only right that the Government act with caution in this area. Finally, Labour supports the amendment to place an obligation on the Secretary of State to consult before using the implementing power contained in clause 2 or before extending it for a further five-year period. Ideally, we would like to have seen further detail on who the Government are obliged to consult, but this is none the less better than nothing. That said, the Minister might like to address that issue in his summing up.
Before I conclude, I wish to pose a few questions to the Minister, where he could go some way to alleviating the remaining concerns many of us, in and out of this place, have about the amended clause 2. Will he give assurances to the House that any consultations on the implementation of a PIL agreement will be held in public rather than in private? Will he confirm that any consultations on the implementations of a PIL agreement will be announced in good time to allow experts to offer their views? Will he give assurances that the Government will produce a report on the outcome of such consultations and ensure that it is widely available to Members of this House? To sum up, although the Opposition would ideally have liked to see clause 2 taken out completely, or for greater restrictions to have been placed on its power, it is clear that the Government have listened to the concerns of the House and have taken some action to address them. We will therefore support these amendments this afternoon.

Kenny MacAskill: Obviously, I rise to support the general principles of the Bill. The Scottish National party, in giving support to this legislation, takes the view that it is not where we wish to be, but in the circumstances of where we find ourselves, it is the best that can be done. It has to be put in the context, both legal and political, of where we find ourselves. In the legal context, many others have mentioned, correctly, that private international law is not even noted a great deal within the wider sphere of law and is rather a specialist niche. I say that as someone who was a lawyer and practised for 20 years, who was a Justice Secretary for seven and a half years and who was the Convenor of the Subordinate Legislation Committee when the Scottish Parliament was first established. Private international law does occasionally result in people’s eyes glazing over, but it is fundamentally important. Significantly, subordinate legislation is equally of great importance and far too frequently missed. Both require to be addressed, because as the Minister and the hon. Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) have mentioned, they are fundamental. This is fundamental to business contracts, as we seek to promote business in a globalised world. It is fundamental to ensuring that litigation can take place if accidents occur abroad, and in the world in which we travel more that is understandable. In family matters, it is fundamental because children are taken, and deeply distressing custody battles are waged over abducted children not only across the border between Scotland and England but around the world. It is also important for the enforcement of aspects such as aliment,  as we call it in Scotland, or alimony, as it is referred to down here. All those things depend on the ability to settle on a jurisdiction—a jurisdiction of choice, or sometimes one that is required—in which rights can be enforced.
Lugano and Hague have been mentioned by the Minister and the hon. Member for Stockton North. They are not simply a holiday resort or a historic city—they are fundamental international agreements that affect the lives of many in this country, if not all, even if it is only rarely or sparingly. They were mentioned in a previous debate by the Chair of the Justice Committee, the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), who is not here because he is chairing the Committee. It is a matter that I know from private practice, having had partners who are involved in child abduction cases that are deeply complex, never mind the issues in dealing with matters across the border between Scotland and England. They are finite. It is on that basis that, when I started out as a young law student and a young lawyer, private international law was, to some extent, the domain of advocates and barristers, as they are called down here, rather than all those dealing with law as solicitors or lawyers.
However, as the world has become more complex and shrunk in many ways, and as we have globalised, it is something that all lawyers have been required to take cognisance of, because more and more clients have cases that have happened elsewhere or have implications in other jurisdictions, not simply within the four nations of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. It needs to be sorted out, and it is on that basis that the Scottish Government have agreed to the memorandum and indeed support it , which is the same position taken by the Law Society of Scotland. We welcome the Lords amendments and the changes that the Government have taken on board. We think that they could have gone further, but we accept the context, and it is their right, with the majority that they have.
That leads us to the political context. This is coming about as a consequence of Brexit. As we come to the end of transition, we face an approaching deadline. Agreements are required, otherwise rights that we have had for years, and sometimes generations, will be lost. There is a maxim—perhaps only my own: legislate in haste and repent at leisure. I worry that, notwithstanding the excellent skills of parliamentary draftsmen, they are drafting this at late notice and trying to bring it all together, to deal with aspects such as Lugano and Hague and matters in which we still do not know whether we will be able to participate because the EU has not yet consented. Those are all fundamental to our rights. They are equally extremely difficult for anybody who is drafting legislation. I know the number of iterations required in legal drafting, so I hope that we will not see numerous rewrites having to take place, not through the fault of those carrying out the instructions but because of the situation they found themselves in—we do not know what we are dealing with, and we are trying to scramble something together with just days to go.

Chris Matheson: The hon. Gentleman is touching on a point that I have expressed concern about. If these legal agreements are done on a bilateral basis with different countries, we might find that we have agreements  with some countries and not others, and therefore constituents of ours with a case in one country will get better access to justice than those with cases in countries where such agreements have not been concluded.

Kenny MacAskill: Absolutely. It is well known—and I have experienced it myself—that where children have been taken to, for example, some north African nations, it can be extremely problematic, if not impossible, for parents seeking their return. Although they had the right to that child, their ability to enforce it was often not recognised. If that is to be the situation we find ourselves in with countries with which we have had greater movement in recent years and greater involvement in terms of trade, the complexities will be extremely difficult indeed.
In the political context, this is the reality. It is not the delusion that we have been given about the sunny uplands of Brexit, or in the defence review about aircraft carriers steaming towards warmer climes, dispensing all sorts of social dividend. I always thought that the people who should be doing the soft diplomacy should be the British Council, as opposed to military forces. I recognise and welcome any work that they can do in that sphere, but it is not what they are trained to do, nor is it their trained function.
This is not the sunny uplands of Brexit. It is the harsh reality of what we face on rights that we have had for more than a generation, on the security of an understanding that lawyers have had about what they could do and where they could go, and the arrangements that have built up. I myself in legal practice had relationships with lawyers in London and Northern Ireland, or wherever else—it was passed around. If all that breaks down, the difficulty for individuals is damaging.
All the emphasis in the public eye has been, perhaps, on the dangers and difficulties we face with access to Europol—there are huge difficulties there—and the difficulties that we may face in terms of sharing information about criminals. We all know that more individuals in this country appear before a tribunal than before a court. We all know, in this Chamber, that more people will be affected by the civil aspects in private international law than will be affected by the far too many, but still far fewer, aspects of criminal offending by those who come here and would require those provisions.
This is the harsh reality of Brexit. We are signing up for something that is acceptable but not as good as what we had. It carries numerous risks. It leaves the danger of deficiencies—sometimes through error, perhaps, but sometimes through a failure to negotiate—that will leave each and every citizen of this country in a worse place. This is not what we were promised. We vote for these measures, but we do so with a heavy heart. It is the harsh reality of Brexit coming home. I hope that many families do not suffer as a consequence.

Jonathan Djanogly: The ongoing disputes over the Bill have not related to the content of private international law treaties, but rather to parliamentary scrutiny of orders made pursuant to PIL treaties and scrutiny of the PIL treaties themselves. As far as the order-making powers are concerned, we have ended up today with a welcome compromise, eked out in the other place following a significant defeat and general kickback from basically everyone for the initial proposals for a Henry VIII clause.
To that end, there were counterproposals to limit the scope for orders to specific treaties, for reports to be laid before auditors and to a stated timetable and for a super-affirmative procedure. Although none of those proposals has been accepted, others have been. I welcome the concessions offered today by the Minister, who I have to say has now listened, in terms of the exclusion of some level of criminal offences punishable by prison, the introduction of a five-year sunset clause, albeit a renewable one, and a prior duty to consult on orders, although only with such persons as the Secretary of State thinks appropriate. That is, frankly, as far as we are going to get on this and I shall support what is offered. However, I wish to make two related wider points.
First, while Government suggest that the PIL treaties are non-contentious, the sweeping scope and initially non-restricted life of order powers clearly represent a significant increase in the power of the Executive. It is also an attack on the constitutional principle that international agreements should only change domestic law if they are instituted by Act of Parliament. Here we need context, because if one looks at the range of current Government Bills, one sees time and again power being removed from this place to the Executive. That was recently described by one journalist as this Government’s Maoist tendency.
It may be that recent staff changes at Number 10 are going to reverse that tendency. The Government should keep in mind that the Executive will not always be a Conservative one, and messing with our finely tuned unwritten constitution may not be to the Conservatives’ advantage in the long run.
My final point concerns what has been persistently avoided in the Bill, which is the urgent need to reform the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 provisions for scrutinising proposed international treaties. Frankly, I have not been able to understand Ministers’ feet dragging on this issue. As things stand, it looks like CRaG reforms are more likely to come in piecemeal via the Trade Bill and the Agriculture Bill. In my view, that sectoral hotch-potch should be managed by the Justice team, to cover all international treaties. I suggest that Ministers apply their many talents to that task.

John Howell: Let me first declare an interest as an associate of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators.
I thought for a moment that I was going to welcome the agreement that there clearly is between my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly) and me, but, given his last comments, I am not sure any more—I need to think about them. However, I think we are on the same sort of page at the moment.
I, too, welcome these Lords amendments and point out that they are a very good compromise between this House and the other place. I also welcome what the Minister has said in bringing them forward. In taking away the criminality, having a sunset clause and bringing in a consultation, they have done a tremendous amount to bridge the gap that there previously was during our discussions on this Bill. But in fundamental essence, the Bill remains the same in what it can do, and I am glad that it does.
I made the point on Report as to why that was important. I am not going to repeat the entire speech that I made then—I probably could not get away with  that—but I stressed the need for agility and flexibility, and I put that in the context of the Singapore mediation convention. There is a great necessity to get the Singapore mediation convention into working order and on the statute book. The reason for that is twofold.
First, it fundamentally does no harm whatsoever—in fact, it does a tremendous amount of good for the small businesses that are choosing mediation as a means of settling their disputes. Secondly, it ends the farce we have at the moment with the system that is in place whereby if one has a mediation, one then has to agree an arbitration, however short that may be, in order to take advantage of the New York convention. That is a nonsense that we do not want to continue with. We must implement the Singapore mediation convention, which allows the results of a mediation to be recognised in the countries that have signed up to this.
The Minister was kind enough to say that I am a great champion of the Singapore mediation convention, and he is quite right, because I have seen that it does a tremendous amount of good for this country. It is also because, as the hon. Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) said, a tremendous amount of alternative dispute resolution takes place in this country. We are world leaders in this, but we will not remain so for very long unless we sign up to the Singapore mediation convention and get stuck into what the rest of the world is getting involved in. All I can do is recommend to the Minister that he gets on with introducing the statutory instrument to get the Singapore mediation convention up and running in this country. To repeat what I said on Third Reading, I am very happy to serve on the SI Committee that introduces the Singapore mediation convention and to see a great dream come true.

Alex Chalk: Let me begin, a little sooner than I had planned, by saying that I am absolutely delighted that this Bill is now going to be supported across the House. It is worth reflecting on the journey that we have made, because, as the hon. Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) rightly said, concerns were raised, first on Second Reading but also in the other place, but we have now got to the point where the Labour and Lib Dem amendments were withdrawn in the other place and this Bill will now receive cross-party support. In getting to this point, their lordships recognised, in the words of Lord Pannick, that “substantial and constructive” amendments had been made by the Government. We did so because we recognise that the issues we are addressing here, when it comes to the constitutional balance in our country, are ones that merit proper and careful consideration. But the imperative for this was in fact laid bare in the points made by the hon. Member for City of Chester (Christian Matheson), who is no longer in his place—[Interruption.] He is back, as if by magic. He asked whether there would be different treatment for British citizens in different parts of the world. That is precisely what the Bill is all about. It is to try to reduce those differences. If we had no private international law agreements, that is exactly the situation we would increasingly find ourselves in. Because we are now better able to implement them, we are better able to provide that certainty and clarity which are in the interests of our constituents and their businesses, whether they manufacture widgets or any other products.
The Bill recognises that we will now be able to have the seamless re-implementation into British domestic law of the three Hague conventions named in clause 1 —Hague 1996, 2005 and 2007—and it will also allow for the timely implementation of the 2007 Lugano convention. I respectfully say to the hon. Member for East Lothian (Kenny MacAskill) of the SNP, who is no longer in his place: the whole point is that we want to go beyond Lugano and this provides us with the ability to do so. It will do so not as a rubber-stamping exercise —not a bit of it. There is proper parliamentary scrutiny, first through the CRaG procedure and, secondly, through the affirmative statutory instrument procedure.
On the points that the hon. Gentleman made about consultation, the consultations will, as required by the statute, take place before there is any attempt to extend the power or to implement any agreement. They will be tailored and proportionate, but there will be complete transparency about what has taken place. A thorough and detailed explanation will be provided to Parliament on who we have consulted, and a fair and balanced summary of the views expressed within the explanatory memorandum that accompanies any statutory instrument made under the power.
That is the right thing to do. That is what is set out in the statute and we have now got to a place where I can say, I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Remaining Lords amendments agreed to.

Rosie Winterton: In order to allow for safe exit and entry before the next business, we will have a three-minute suspension.
Sitting suspended.

Exiting the European Union

Amanda Solloway: I beg to move,
That the draft Prohibition on Quantitative Restrictions (EU Exit) Regulations 2020, which were laid before this House on 9 November, be approved.
As I am sure hon. Members recognise, it is important that we have full sovereignty over our regulatory regime for goods at the end of the transition period. The statutory instrument will help to ensure that we are not challenged if we choose to diverge from EU regulations. At the end of the transition period, EU treaty rights on the movement of goods stemming from articles 34 to 36 of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union will be retained in UK law unless they are removed by this SI.

Alan Brown: I thank the Minister for giving way. Obviously, the statutory instrument is about divergence, and the UK Government talk about taking back control. What is the position on consent to the regulations from the devolved nations? More importantly, what discussions have the Government had with the devolved nations to make sure that their wishes are not overridden and that divergences are not forced on the devolved Administrations?

Amanda Solloway: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. I will come on to that later in my opening comments.
The EU treaty rights prohibit quantitative restrictions or equivalent measures on imports and exports, meaning that divergence from EU regulatory requirements could result in a challenge from a business or importer if they deem it a barrier to placing their goods on the market in Great Britain. To be clear, the SI is not a pre-condition for divergence: as of 1 January, Parliament will of course have the ability to introduce new regulations. Instead, it is about removing potential grounds for legal challenge based on retained treaty articles that have no place on our statute book once we have fully regained our independence.
The SI will remove the aforementioned EU treaty rights so they no longer apply in England, Scotland or Wales. It will not result in any immediate changes for goods in the UK but will protect our right to diverge from EU goods regulations in future, where we so choose.
The SI will protect our ability to regulate goods as we see fit and ensure that challenges do not require us to keep in line with the EU regulations. I commend it to the House.

Alan Brown: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I asked the Minister a specific question about consent and the devolved Administration and the Minister said that she would come on to that in her speech. Can you advise me on how I can get that answer from the Minister?

Rosie Winterton: Thank you for that point of order. The Minister may respond at this point or she may wish to respond at the end of the debate. If she wants to do it now, that is—

Amanda Solloway: I will respond at the end. [Interruption.]

Rosie Winterton: That is the Minister’s right, but she has given an undertaking that she will respond at the end to the points raised, so we will leave it at that.

Chris Bryant: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am not sure that I have ever heard such a cursory explanation of a statutory instrument in the Chamber. The whole point of Ministers coming to the House, rather than doing statutory instruments elsewhere, is that they give a full and proper explanation of the legislation that they are advancing. Is there any way in which we can make sure that the Minister provides a full and proper explanation of why this statutory instrument is necessary?

Rosie Winterton: I think we need to move on. The Minister has undertaken to come back at the end. I am sure she will have heard the points made by Members in the Chamber. I am sure she will come back at the end and perhaps respond to some of the points that have been made. I really would like to move on at this point.

Lucy Powell: Can I also, at the beginning of this debate, express, I am afraid, my absolute shock and disgust, frankly? This statutory instrument was deemed so important that it was brought to the Floor of the House rather than a Committee. Frankly, I could have been there as well and given a cursory speech and been at home with my children. But, instead, I prepared a proper speech that is fitting of a debate on the Floor of this House on a statutory instrument that has wide-ranging—very wide-ranging—powers.
The Minister and I do not usually stand opposite one another. We did have that pleasure this morning. This morning, in the debate we had in Westminster Hall, I thought to myself that I respected the Minister. It was the first time I had seen her in action, and I really did think what a sound and reasonable Minister she was. But, frankly, she is taking instructions from her Whips. That is her judgment to do. But in time, that will not be very fitting of her ministerial role. I know she will feel deeply uncomfortable with what she is being asked to do and it is pretty embarrassing for her.

Chris Matheson: I am listening to this, and I have to say that the impression I am getting is that the shadow Minister, whom I thank for giving way, is being asked to do the job of the Minister—namely, explaining to the House the basis of the statutory instrument that is before the House. Surely that is not the role of the shadow Minister.

Lucy Powell: Absolutely not, and my hon. Friend is right to make that point. It is not just we in this House who need these explanations. Frankly, businesses in particular are being left completely blind at the moment about how on earth they are supposed to prepare for the end of the transition. We are no further down the road with a deal, and they have no idea of the terms under which they are going to be trading in a few weeks’ time. I am sure many of those businesses, notwithstanding the total chaos that they are subject to at the moment as  well, are tuning in to the parliamentary channel today to try to shed some light on this issue, and they did not even get a hello or a by your leave from the Minister.

Hilary Benn: On the point that my hon. Friend has just made, anyone who was watching the Public Accounts Committee session yesterday with three permanent secretaries—I had an opportunity as Chair of the Future Relationship with the European Union Committee to guest—would have found that in respect of Northern Ireland, just to take one example of uncertainty, it is impossible at the moment to answer any questions about how the arrangements are going to work. And we are—what?—39 days away from actually leaving the transition period.

Lucy Powell: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. He makes a very important point. Really, if this Government want to have any standing whatsoever with business, which is very shaky at the moment, I have to say—their reputation with business is incredibly shaky—they must do better. Any business tuning in right now would be, frankly, appalled because this has given them no information whatsoever.

Chris Matheson: I am now beginning to share the indignation of my hon. Friend on the Front Bench, because we have gone through a process from “eff business” to an “oven-ready” deal that frankly was not oven-ready, and now we have businesses waiting, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) says, to find out what is looming upon us in 39 days, and there is still no absolute clarity. Does my hon. Friend agree that the real problem is that the progression is getting steadily worse, with steadily more disrespect for the business that pays the bills of this country?

Lucy Powell: I absolutely agree. I said at the Dispatch Box a few weeks ago that the Conservative party was no longer the party of business. The Government are doing themselves no favours whatsoever. I do not know what shenanigans are going on or why the Whips are telling the Minister to speak for only a minute or two. I thought that such shenanigans would depart when Dominic Cummings left No. 10, but it seems that they are going to continue. If this is about curtailing debate, well, I am very sorry but I have news for the Government, because we are not going to be curtailing this debate.

Chris Bryant: I was particularly irritated by the Government’s cursory presentation of the measure before us because, although clause 1(2) states that the regulations
“extend to England and Wales and Scotland only”,
there has not, as I understand it, been a full consultation with the Welsh Government or the Scottish Government, and I was looking forward to having an opportunity to explore precisely where we are going on this with the Government Minister—she is the only person who can really answer that—not least because one of my biggest anxieties is that in this whole process the Government’s relations with the devolved Governments have been so bad that they are tearing at the structure of the Union.

Lucy Powell: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I have not even started my substantive speech yet, which  I intend to make, but I will come on to make some of those points. Time and again this Government show  disregard not only for business but for devolution and power sharing. I think we have made our point about our real—[Interruption.] The Minister is now taking further instructions from the Whips, and I have no doubt that her winding-up speech will be even shorter than her opening remarks. She might want to maintain a bit more social distancing while she is doing this, because that is nowhere near—[Interruption.] Oh, are you allowed to sit that close together?

Chris Matheson: There is another possibility, of course, which is that the Government Whip on the Treasury Bench is explaining the basis of this statutory instrument to the Minister because she was not aware of it.

Lucy Powell: I don’t know what is going on, but I want to put on record my huge disappointment on behalf not just of those of us who have spent time preparing for this debate but of all those watching these goings-on. If this statutory instrument is important enough to be brought to the Floor of the House, it is important enough to be debated. I can see that there are decent, honourable Conservative Members who have not withdrawn and who are here to make a substantive speech for themselves, and I hope that the right hon. Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) will take his time in doing so.
I will now get on to my speech, as I have perhaps taken up a lot of the time that the Minister might have used to explain the statutory instrument to us. We do not oppose this statutory instrument today, because we recognise that it is a natural consequence of leaving the EU and an end of the transition period.

Chris Bryant: The Opposition Front Benchers might not be opposing this measure, and there might be things in it that we quite like, but if the Minister does not reply properly and fully and explain the measure before the House, I cannot see how the House can possibly support her, in which case we would have to force a Division.

Lucy Powell: My hon. Friend makes a good point, and I agree with him. I am beginning to change my mind as we stand here discussing this. Well, I say “discussing” it—we are discussing these issues, but discussion in a vacuum is not really proper discussion at all, is it?
This statutory instrument leaves more questions than answers, as we still have no idea what, if anything, will replace aspects of the current EU framework for the movement of goods in a future trade deal. Any deal is almost certain to make arrangements for the continued market in goods across the UK-EU border. Even with no deal, there would still be a number of implications for trade within the UK, as has already been mentioned by the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown). We want the Government to get such a deal, and we want them to do so urgently. As each day passes, the uncertainty for UK businesses is prolonged at a time when many of them are coping with unprecedented uncertainty due to the covid pandemic and the ensuing economic crisis.
The Prime Minister promised us an “oven-ready” deal, but it seems that in reality it is anything but. He promised us a future relationship, which included
“no tariffs, fees, charges or quantitative restrictions across all sectors.”
I have not seen much sign of that today. He promised that he would safeguard workers’ rights and consumer and environmental protections, and keep people safe with a
“broad, comprehensive and balanced scrutiny partnership.”

Hilary Benn: My hon. Friend mentions tariffs, and of course we are all hoping for an agreement that means no tariffs are charged. The Government have already made clear to the motor industry and to car manufacturers that they have failed to get a satisfactory agreement on rules of origin, and therefore for some exports of the British car industry. We send, I think, just under 2,000 cars a day to the European Union. If they do not meet the rules of origin requirements, given the Government’s failure in the negotiations, they will face tariffs.

Lucy Powell: Absolutely. My right hon. Friend makes an excellent point, and that is why this debate is so important. It coincides with worrying rumours—I hear that they are rumours, but rumours can cause a great deal of worry—about the future of the Nissan car plant in Sunderland.

Alex Cunningham: The shadow Minister took the words from my lips. Nissan is in the north-east, and although we are 30 miles away, businesses in my constituency and throughout Teesside rely on it to buy their products. Within the last few days we have heard Nissan say that if we do not get a good enough deal, it will be off. That must be a terrible blow to any region, but to the north-east, where unemployment is nearly double the national average, it simply does not wash.

Lucy Powell: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, and those are the real risks that we currently face. There is real uncertainty around the deal. Many of the previous commitments made are now undermined, and that will have a devastating impact on particular sectors, such as the automotive industry and the aerospace industry—perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Christian Matheson) wants to come in on that. Both those sectors are particularly powerful when it comes to the so-called levelling-up agenda, and I worry about that.

Chris Matheson: I was going to talk about the automotive sector, but since my hon. Friend tempts me, I will mention the aerospace sector, which is a major employer in my area and the region that we share. Aerospace jobs with prime contractors or first-tier members of the supply chain have a jobs multiplier effect of four, five or six jobs for every one job in that prime or first-tier supply chain. It is not simply about the aerospace companies; the manufacturing industry right across is holding on, dangling, and waiting for some kind of hope of a deal, but we are not getting it.

Lucy Powell: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. Those big manufacturing businesses are waiting every hour that passes for some news on a deal, and today they will be tuning into the Parliament channel to find out what will happen with the movement of goods after we end the transition period. Those cornerstone companies are what communities are built on, and when they go, they are gone. That is why this debate is so important, and frankly the Government’s disregard for it is embarrassing.

Alan Brown: The hon. Lady and her colleagues are making important points. She mentioned the levelling-up agenda. Is it ironic that although the UK Government talk about levelling up across the regions and nations of the UK, the areas that will be hit hardest by no deal and by a lack of preparation are the very areas that the Government pretend they are trying to level up? They speak with a forked tongue every time. Should not the Minister be giving us more information from the Dispatch Box?

Lucy Powell: Absolutely. This agenda could not come at a more critical time, because these same sectors and industries have been left on their knees as a result of covid-19. They just cannot cope with all these things coming at once.

Alex Cunningham: My hon. Friend will realise that businesses from Nissan to the chemicals industry on Teesside rely on a just-in-time supply chain. They need things to be crossing borders almost daily in order to complete the process of manufacturing goods. If there is any further delay in that process, some of these companies will say, “Well, we may as well manufacture in Spain.”

Lucy Powell: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is one of the reasons we wanted to support this statutory instrument today. Businesses have no resilience left anymore. Any money or time that they set aside for end-of-transition preparations and so on has all disappeared because of the coronavirus pandemic and the ensuing economic crisis.
It is important to remind the House of the things that the Prime Minister promised as the negotiations with Brussels enter their endgame, because I really am not sure that the results are going to match the initial promise that we were given at the election last year. A deal that fails to deliver on the commitments made in the political declaration and to the British people at the general election risks making life considerably harder for jobs, businesses and communities already grappling with the economic challenges of covid-19, as so many Members have already raised.

Chris Bryant: I used to have a farm in the Rhondda. One of the issues that I know is facing Welsh farmers in particular at the moment is that tupping has already happened for the spring flock. A pregnancy in a sheep takes roughly 152 days, so lots of commercial decisions have already been made by lots of farmers. How are they to proceed when they do not have the faintest idea what tariffs may or may not apply to Welsh lamb, 50% of which is sold in the rest of the European Union, on 1 January?

Lucy Powell: My hon. Friend’s knowledge of sheep gestation periods is far superior to mine, but I very much take his point about planning and the need for certainty. Not only is there all the uncertainty around tariffs and the trade in goods and services that we are now facing; add to that the fact that I am sure some of those Rhondda farmers had been planning for a bumper Christmas with some of their lambing earlier in the year, but that will no longer be the case. That is the double whammy that most businesses are facing, whether they are agriculture or manufacturing businesses.
With time running out, the Government really do need to get on with it and get a good deal for the British people and British businesses. I know that the Minister and her colleagues are in touch with businesses as much as I am. Businesses have real concerns that they will not have the bandwidth for Brexit alongside the pressures of dealing with the pandemic, nor will they have the time to implement whatever is expected from a deal, should one be struck.
Presumably, the Government’s argument today—not that we have heard it, so I have no idea what it is—is that they need to bring forward this legislation now, without knowing what will replace it, because time is running out to pass all the necessary legislation ahead of the transition. Why do they not recognise—perhaps the Minister might respond to some of these things in the 30 seconds that her Whips have given her—that the same applies to businesses up and down the country? They need time to do these things ahead of the Christmas period too.
Businesses have real concerns that the Government will blame them for any disruption and make them the fall guys. I wondered whether the new No. 10 internal arrangements might have changed its attitude towards business, but after today’s performance I am not sure that businesses will have that reassurance. [Interruption.] The Minister’s Parliamentary Private Secretary, the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mark Fletcher), moans from a sedentary position. He is more than welcome to speak in the debate, but I see that all his colleagues have withdrawn.

Mark Tami: Is not it ironic that at the election we were all promised certainty? Where are we now? We have no certainty in this process at all.

Lucy Powell: We do not even have certainty about what we are going to do at Christmas, do we—let alone any of the certainty that we were hoping for beyond the new year? As I said earlier, the Conservative party really is losing face with business. It used to be the party of business, but right now I am really not sure that it is.

Hilary Benn: My hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) mentioned a moment ago a farm in his constituency. I do not know whether my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell) saw the comments of the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on “Marr” the week before last. When he was asked about the impact that tariffs, in the event of no deal, would have on lamb farmers, he said, “Well, they’ll just have to diversify into beef.” Is she aware that the chief executive of the National Sheep Association, Mr Phil Stocker, said:
“Mr Eustice’s comments will have angered many of our nation’s sheep farmers”?
Does not that reinforce the point that she has just made—that the Government are, frankly, losing face in the business community?

Lucy Powell: My right hon. Friend makes a good point. It is not only the business community, but the farming community—communities that have historically both been the base of the Conservative party. I am not sure whether that was the same interview in which the  Environment Secretary also made false claims about Lurpak butter which had to be rectified by the company afterwards.

Alan Brown: The hon. Member is absolutely right. It is quite clear that the Tories are no longer the party of business. As she correctly says, they are alienating the farmers with their attitude. Laughably, they call themselves the party of workers. Is it not the case that it is the workers who are going to be shafted most by Brexit? Many workers in the UK, including the 3 million, are currently excluded from any support from the UK Government whatever, so the Government are actually doing a good job of alienating the entire population.

Lucy Powell: The hon. Member is absolutely right. Company directors who have not had any support during this crisis are particularly aggrieved, and they are part of the 3 million excluded, who he rightly mentions. I know that he has been making these points consistently, so maybe the Minister will respond to that point; you never know.

Chris Bryant: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Lucy Powell: I was just going to get on to the detail of the statutory instrument. I have not actually started the substance of my speech yet, but I will give way.

Chris Bryant: My hon. Friend mentioned Christmas and the former vicar in me sort of bubbled up, and I remembered all those terrible years when I had to sing “Hark the Herald Angels Sing” 77 times before we even got to Christmas eve; lots of vicars will not be upset if they do not have to sing it quite that often.
Let me turn to the serious point. As I understand it, the delay in getting any kind of deal with the European Union almost certainly means that the European Parliament may have to sit on 28 December. Is it not perfectly possible, given that we do not even know the Christmas recess dates for this House yet, that we too may have to sit on 28 or 29 December? There is nothing in this measure that makes it clear what would need to change, whether a deal is sorted or is not.

Eleanor Laing: Order, just before the shadow Minister responds to the intervention, she said herself that she will now be turning to the substance of the matter before us. As much as it is always interesting to consider the history and choir practice of the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant)—

Chris Bryant: Not all of it.

Eleanor Laing: Oh, no. I did not say “all of it”—not by any manner of means.

Chris Bryant: You don’t know the half of it.

Eleanor Laing: I think that is just as well. That which refers to his singing specifically of “Hark the Herald Angels Sing” is interesting, but not relevant. I am quite sure that the shadow Minister will come to the relevant points before us.

Lucy Powell: Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. Of course, my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) is very good at writing books. He has one out—I think for Christmas, actually—at the moment, but the book that we are all waiting for is his diaries. I am not sure when they will be published, but maybe they will be a Christmas bumper when they do.
As the Minister said briefly in her opening remarks, this statutory instrument will end the application in the UK of the rights derived from articles 34 to 36 of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union. The removal of these provisions will ensure that there is no barrier to divergence from EU rules should the Government choose to diverge. As the memorandum that accompanies the statutory instrument sets out, the Government plan for the UK to have its own regulatory regime for goods after the end of the implementation period.

Alex Cunningham: One of the things that will be covered by that regime is the movement of food, which does not just go from this country to Europe but comes in the opposite direction as well. Many businesses in this country are extremely worried that food for which there might be a lead time of three weeks could end up sitting on the docks for hours on end if we do not get the agreement that we need.

Lucy Powell: My hon. Friend makes an important point. I hope the Minister has taken note of that and that we can hear about it when she responds, because it is especially important at this time of year—not to keep on with the Christmas puns, Madam Deputy Speaker.
If the Minister is allowed to, will she update us on what the EU-UK trade regime will look like and what rights and protections will be in place at the end of the implementation period? When will we get the details? More importantly, will businesses have plenty of time to prepare for the regime’s implementation? Ministers have repeatedly said that in many policy areas the rights and protections that we have enjoyed inside the EU will be maintained and improved on when we are outside the EU. Will the Minister set out where she thinks we might diverge from EU standards and requirements in future? How will she ensure that divergence benefits British businesses, instead of putting in place new barriers to trade that could cost them dear?

Stephen Doughty: My hon. Friend is talking about the import of different foods, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) just mentioned. Is she aware of the specific situation for the UK overseas territories and whether or not they are being properly considered in the transition arrangements? I am aware of serious concerns from the Falkland Islands in particular in respect of their squid industry, which provides much of the calamari in European markets. They are concerned about whether those concerns are being heard in the negotiations and about whether or not at the end of December they will face a cliff edge that could be devastating to their economy, which relies so heavily on fish products. Does my hon. Friend agree that the UK Government ought to be standing up for the Falkland Islands and their fishing industry and ensuring that they are able to continue the excellent trade that they have with other parts of the EU?

Lucy Powell: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point about squid in the Falkland Islands that I was not aware of. It is important to bear that in mind. We are talking about the Conservative party losing its reputation, whether on business or agriculture; those of us who are halfway through the new series of “The Crown” will also be reminded of the importance of the Falkland Islands to Conservative Members. One would have thought that that would be at the forefront of their minds.

Stephen Doughty: I hope that the Minister will be able to address this point when she responds, because my understanding is that the Falkland Islands have been raising their concerns. There are meetings this week with the Minister for the Overseas Territories, but the Falkland Islands have written to the Prime Minister about this issue several times and my understanding is that there has not yet been a formal reply to the substantive concerns that they have raised. That is very concerning, because it leaves them in a great deal of uncertainty about what will happen post the end of December.

Lucy Powell: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This statutory instrument should and could be an opportunity to clarify those matters but, as I said at the beginning of my speech, it will take provisions away without any of us understanding what will replace them. That is causing a huge amount of uncertainty, not just here in the UK but, as my hon. Friend says, in the UK territories. I am sure that, given its closeness to the EU, Gibraltar will be worried as well.

Chris Matheson: My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) is absolutely right. I was grateful to visit the Falkland Islands during the squid-fishing season as a guest of the Falkland Islands Government. Squid fishing is a major part of their economy. It is an utterly inevitable consequence of what has happened that our overseas territories—my hon. Friend the shadow Minister mentioned Gibraltar as well—will feel out on a limb. We need to be able to assure them, as soon as possible, that they are not out on a limb. That assurance is still not forthcoming with, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) has said, 39 days to go. These are territories that choose to be British and they are not getting the kind of reassurance that they desire.

Lucy Powell: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. Perhaps next time he goes on a delegation there he can see whether I want to join them, as the shadow business Minister. It sounds like a good trip, and I am partial to a bit of calamari, so I would enjoy that.
This statutory instrument relates not just to UK-EU trade, but to the requirement for a new framework for UK-wide trade, as we have been debating through the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill—now in the other place—because current treaty provisions also govern trade in goods across the UK. Will the Minister update us on where these issues are now up to, as we need to know before stripping away all the trade regulations that currently apply across the UK? As has been raised, any divergence needs to be agreed with the devolved Administrations, and that is why we are hoping that common standards for trading agreements will be agreed via the common frameworks put on a statutory basis. Ministers herald this approach yet refuse to put them  on a statutory footing. There have been many long discussions on this in the Chamber and in the other place. The Government recently lost votes on this aspect of the internal market Bill, so we are hoping that the Government will accept these amendments when they return. Can the Minister confirm that?

Alex Cunningham: My hon. Friend posed the question of where there is likely to be divergence. We know already that there has been divergence on food standards, paving the way for importing chlorinated chicken, hormone-fed beef and all manner of things. Those goods are going to end up in the stomachs of the poor people—the people on low incomes—in my constituency and in my hon. Friend’s. Does she not agree that we need to tighten this up and make sure that all our people are protected with proper standards and proper regulations?

Lucy Powell: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is why it is such an important issue, and we really are hoping and expecting that the Minister will confirm today that the Government will accept the amendments on this that were passed in the other place, because it is about how we as a country are coming to an agreement about standards. I am sure that these issues will be raised later in the debate.
The Government must respect the devolution settlement and work collaboratively, in good faith, with the devolved Administrations to build that strong and thriving internal market with common standards underpinning it. Not doing so would threaten our precious Union by putting rocket boosters under the campaign for independence in Scotland. I know that the Prime Minister is very keen to talk about Christmas at the moment, but he seems to be giving the Scottish First Minister all her Christmases at once by his constant undermining of devolution recently. He seems to have made another blunder on that recently, propelling her campaign for Scottish independence by, as I said, putting rocket boosters under it.
On that point, I wonder whether the Minister would also explain to us the status of this statutory instrument. It is my understanding that her colleague, the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi), wrote to his counterparts in the devolved Administrations to seek their consent for him to lay this statutory instrument, which she is taking on his behalf, as some goods potentially affected by this instrument fall under devolved competence. I understand that consent has been received from the Welsh Government, but not yet from the Scottish Government—I do not know whether the hon. SNP spokesman wants to come in on this. I am not sure whether we can lay and agree to this statutory instrument today on that basis. What happens if the Scottish Government do not consent to it but Parliament already has? I do not know whether anyone knows the answer to that or if the Minister wants to rise to clarify that.

Chris Matheson: rose—

Lucy Powell: Maybe my hon. Friend knows.

Chris Matheson: We can do better than that, of course, because we had word from the Prime Minister last week, who described devolution as “a disaster”.  Conservative Members are playing fast and loose with the Union. They are playing fast and loose with the United Kingdom. They are playing fast and loose with devolution, and their attitude to devolution was shown from the very top by the Prime Minister. That surely answers my hon. Friend’s question.

Eleanor Laing: Order. We will stick to the terms of this statutory instrument, which is fairly narrow.

Lucy Powell: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The point is important to the statutory instrument, because I am not sure of its status. As my hon. Friend says, is it just another example of a total disregard for devolution and power sharing, further undermining that at such an important juncture. It is important to know whether, in writing to the devolved Administrations before laying the statutory instrument, the Government decided just to plough on anyway and totally disregard that consent, or whether consent is required on a retrospective basis. I really am at a loss on that and it makes me wonder whether we are discussing this statutory instrument on the basis on which we all thought we were discussing it, so I think that is an important point for the Minister to address.

Hilary Benn: Paragraph 2.2 of the explanatory memorandum reminds us that the provisions, which, as I understand the regulations, the Government are proposing to disapply, are the part of the EU treaty that encourages the free movement of goods by avoiding quantitative restrictions. The whole purpose of the negotiation, according to the Prime Minister’s word, is to achieve a deal that does not involve quantitative restrictions, yet we are being asked to disapply them. Furthermore, in the next paragraph it states:
“For clarity, as the GB intends to have its own regulatory regime after the transition period, these rights are being disapplied as it is no longer appropriate for them to coexist”—
coexist with what?—
“and pose some risk of challenge if we decide to diverge from EU law.”
Would it not be helpful to the House if the Minister, in replying, were to give us some explanation of the potential risk of challenge to something that the Government say is their objective in the negotiations—the free movement of goods without quantitative restrictions?

Lucy Powell: As always, my right hon. Friend makes an incredibly powerful point. Although on the face of it the statutory instrument looks like it is fairly narrow, it is actually of huge significance and importance. It is inextricably linked to the current negotiations. That is why, as the shadow Minister, I thought—foolishly maybe—that the Government had decided to bring it to the Floor of the House. As I say, there are aspects that look narrow, but it is a hugely significant statutory instrument. That is why I was flabbergasted at the beginning of the debate that the Minister did not seem to have anything much to say about it.
As other colleagues have pointed out in other statutory instruments and through the passage of the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill, it is still unclear what checks, controls and processes will be put in place on qualifying  Northern Ireland goods, which are also implicated in this statutory instrument, moving from Northern Ireland to Great Britain. Despite the Government’s protestations at the time about the very real dangers, as they saw them, of EU attempts to blockade NI-GB movement and goods, there was absolutely nothing to deal with that apparent clear and present danger in the Bill, as we discussed at the time. We support unfettered access for Northern Ireland businesses to the rest of the UK market. However, there are a number of issues that stand relating to the breadth of the definition of qualifying Northern Ireland goods. My right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) is across that matter as well. The Government appear to acknowledge that it is problematic, but it remains unclear what they are going to do about it.
Today’s statutory instrument sheds no further light on that. In fact, it probably makes it even more complicated. We need further clarification, because the definition is not sufficiently tightly drawn to provide the protections intended. The wide drafting of the definition of “qualifying goods” is the problem, because it includes anything that is in circulation within Northern Ireland without being subject to customs control while there. However, it also includes goods processed in Northern Ireland from Great Britain-derived goods, which are themselves subject to customs control in Northern Ireland. I hope people are keeping up, as this is quite a complex subject, which is why I hope the Minister will properly respond. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) has said, that could include whisky imported from Scotland to Northern Ireland, which might be in duty suspension in Northern Ireland but then is used to make mince pies in Belfast. That would leave those mince pies as qualifying Northern Ireland goods, despite the whisky used to make them being subject to customs controls. So we have argued that the definition of qualifying Northern Ireland goods is not sustainable in the longer term. It appears that Ministers agree, but will the Minister let us know today what plans the Government have in place to resolve this?

Stephen Doughty: My hon. Friend is making an important point. She will know that I raised these issues in the statement the other day on Northern Ireland-related issues and trade with Wales. Is she aware of the concerns raised today on BBC Wales by hauliers, who are describing how they fear mayhem at the port of Holyhead in Ynys Môn—Anglesey? The Irish Road Haulage Association fears that the processes are not ready and in place. For example, it is concerned that the IT systems to deal with these changes are not ready. Does she agree that the Government have not answered a whole series of questions, which will have impacts on ports and trade in Wales, and of course on goods transiting the Republic of Ireland to Northern Ireland and back and forth? This is far, far more complex and people are simply not convinced by the answers they have had from the Government so far.

Lucy Powell: My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point about the impact on ports, including Holyhead. That is why, as things stand, this statutory instrument is at best making the situation worse; all it is doing is pulling away some of the existing frameworks, without our understanding what they are going to be replaced with. That is probably the worst of all worlds for anyone following these issues and having to try to  plan around them. Road hauliers are at the forefront of that. I was talking to businesses about this the other day. It beggars belief that in the current situation, with the pandemic and what is going to be happening over Christmas, we could even be countenancing lorries stacking up on motorways and other roads, and gridlock at our ports, with all the paperwork that has not yet been agreed and sorted out. I just do not know what Government, at any time, would actively seek that, but that is what this Government seem to be doing.

Bambos Charalambous: My hon. Friend mentions paperwork. One issue with organic materials is the SPS—sanitary and phytosanitary —checks, which require certificates. We currently have a shortage of vets to carry out these certifications. Is that not another problem that will lead to our ports being blocked and further delays?

Lucy Powell: I really am learning some things today, and, yes, I very much think that that would lead to that. My hon. Friend raises another important point. These are the wide-ranging implications of what we are seeing and the huge uncertainty. Can the Minister tell us today whether a more refined definition of qualifying Northern Ireland goods will be introduced? When will we have the clarity we all need on that?
We are also concerned about the impact on standards across the UK. Given that Northern Ireland is, in essence, within the EU single market for goods, any good allowed to be sold within the EU as complying with the EU single market must be allowed to be sold in Northern Ireland. So if, for example, Wales decided to extend the EU environmental standards applicable to vehicle emissions, the combinations of regulations would mean that Wales could not succeed, because a lower standard vehicle would be on sale lawfully in Northern Ireland and would be a qualifying Northern Ireland good. The mutual recognition principle in the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill would override that desire of the Welsh Government. Given that processed goods from Northern Ireland may include components originating outside the country, does the approach outlined in the statutory instrument for qualifying goods have wider implications for the UK’s approach to the rules of origin with the rest of the world? I do not know whether the Minister wants to take this opportunity to respond—she may have had a chance to brief herself a little more during my speech while considering her closing remarks. As she will have understood, the statutory instrument, far from being a cursory, quick bit of legislation, has massive implications for businesses and others who, I am afraid, have been left wanting, given what we have heard today.
As this debate has shown once again, there are—[Interruption.] You are nodding, Madam Deputy Speaker; I am on my peroration, you will be pleased to hear. As the debate has shown, there are huge uncertainties still facing businesses that trade in goods and services, even those whose markets are mainly internal. Given that that now comes on top of the biggest economic crash that we have seen probably for 300 years, and the huge uncertainty still surrounding businesses, not least our manufacturers, as we have heard, due to the covid-19 crisis, the Government really need to step up and get a Brexit deal done, allow time for businesses to prepare and absorb the consequences of that deal, and get on and sort out all of these outstanding issues relating to  the UK internal market. The House has expressed huge disappointment and shock that the Government have not taken this very important opportunity of its own making to come to the House today to explore and update us all on these very important matters facing business. The Minister will have an opportunity shortly to respond, and I hope that she will answer the many, many questions that we have raised today.

John Redwood: I have declared my business interests in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. May I reassure the Opposition that I wanted to make a few comments in this debate, and I submitted a request to participate on my own initiative? I have not received any message from the Whips, either before or during these debates, that I should not make a few remarks. With the permission of the House, I will exercise that democratic right.
I understand that there is a parliamentary game going on and that the Opposition want to extend this debate because there are some other things that they do not want to discuss, but that is a matter for them. Oppositions are quite entitled to use what time is available for their own purposes.

Alan Brown: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the game is not on the Government’s side, given that they have withdrawn all their speakers, except for his good self?

John Redwood: On the contrary. As I have just explained, there has been no pressure to withdraw my application. Some of my right hon. and hon. Friends who thought that they were going to speak in the debate have reread the proposal and realised that, given the incisive eloquence we would hear from the Minister, there was absolutely no need for them to come to the Chamber and duplicate and triplicate that. I have been foolish enough to think that I can add something to the Government’s case, because I support the measure. The fact that my right hon. and hon. Friends seem to have better things to do shows that they are 100% behind the measure, and just want it to be passed as quickly as possible as they attend to their other duties as busy MPs.
So why do I support these regulations, and why are the Government doing this? The first reason is to take back control. That is what millions of people voted for, and many of us are very frustrated that it still has not happened. As the Minister stated clearly, this is about ensuring that, from 1 January, we in this House, on behalf of the British people, can decide for ourselves within international law what the rules shall be on tariffs, quantitative barriers, restrictions and inducements to trade—and how right that is.
I always find it so disappointing that the Opposition, who now say that they understand the spirit of Brexit and have embraced it, do not believe that they can come up with any single improvement on the great body of European law that has been forced on us over many years. I am more optimistic. Working with the talent on the Government Benches, I can see lots of ways of improving on European law. It can be better, not worse, and more rather than less in the right areas. Surely our trade policy should be geared to the interests and concerns of businesses that back this country by investing and creating jobs in it.

Stephen Doughty: I raised a serious point in an intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell) about the Falkland Islands. Does the right hon. Member agree that the UK family is a large one, including our overseas territories, and we ought to be backing the fishing fleet in the Falkland Islands that are trying to export squid and calamari to the EU? Will he join me on a cross-party basis in urging the UK Government to address the concerns of the Falkland Islands?

John Redwood: Of course I hope we can do things to help the Falkland Islands, as we have over many years. They are clearly part of our family, and blood and treasure have been shed to ensure that they are part of our family, so I above all think that we should do all we can.
From 1 January, we in this House can do the things that are in the power of an independent country. We cannot instruct the EU when we are out of it any more than we could when we were in it. There have been a glittering array of failed issues that we put to the EU on which it did not sympathise with us. We had a series of Governments who were so broken backed that they only ever accepted things that the EU wanted to do and did not try to do anything that we wanted to do, which is why it got so frustrating as a member of that body.
It is about taking back control, and I urge everyone here to be more optimistic about the powers of this House. What is the point of someone being a Member of Parliament if they do not believe that they can improve on anything in the inherited corpus of EU law? Why do the Opposition, on the whole, say, “Everything EU perfect, everything generated in this country rubbish”? It is not plausible, and it is against the spirit of the Brexit majority in this country. They want us to get a grip and do better. If we do not do better, they will change us. That is the joy of Brexit—they, at last, will get back control over us. If the law went wrong in the European Union, it did not matter who was in the Government. Even if they threw the Government out, nothing changed, because the EU would not change the law, whereas if we get the laws wrong, the public will know what to do—they can throw Ministers out.

Alex Cunningham: Will the right hon. Member give way?

John Redwood: I am not giving way, because I have a couple of points to make, and I am conscious that many Members wish to make speeches.

Lucy Powell: Where are they then?

John Redwood: There are clearly Members on the Opposition Benches wishing to catch Madam Deputy Speaker’s eye.
The second point I want to make is that this is about our balance of trade and our balance of payments. One of the tragedies of our membership of the European Union over nearly 50 years was how we transformed ourselves from an industrial country with a strong farming and fishing industry into one that had been badly damaged by the rules and tariffs that the EU imposed on us and our trade with the rest of the world. It was asymmetric and very cruel.
We lost a large chunk of our motor industry in the first decade of our membership—I think it halved—and we lost a lot of our steel industry. We moved from being a net exporter of fish to being a heavy net importer, with much of our fish taken by foreign vessels and foreign industry. We have lost a lot of our self-sufficiency in temperate food, because the common agricultural policy did not suit us. State aid, cheap energy and so forth on the continent helped places such as the Netherlands to outcompete us on salads and flowers, for example.
We have a big job to do to rebuild ourselves as an industrial, farming and fishing country that is capable of cutting the food miles, cutting the fish miles and delivering more to ourselves and to our own plates through import substitution. I hope that from 1 January, if not before, Ministers will use these new powers to review all the restrictions and rules about trade and tariffs and create a British model that is better and fairer to Britain, so that “made in Britain” means something, and more is made in Britain and willingly bought by British people. It is very difficult for the Opposition to oppose that, although they will doubtless try to, because they always want to sell Britain short and to build the EU up to greater heights. None the less, outside this Chamber there will be great relief to know that at least some people in Parliament wish to see a revival of British fishing, British farming and British industry and to understand that the rules of trade and the skewed subsidies and tariffs against the rest of the world have been extremely damaging to people who want to build businesses and farming activities in the UK and that it is time for a reversal. I wholeheartedly support this measure. I want to take back control and I urge more MPs to get into the spirit of it, and, instead of cavilling and criticising every move that this country wishes to make to be independent, contribute to the debate about how we can be better.

Alan Brown: I do not often say this, but it is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Wokingham (John Redwood). I am glad that he actually came and contributed here today. At the end of his rousing speech, I admired his optimism. He has retained that optimism all this life. He spoke about what could be done better. Perhaps he should have a word with his Minister about that, because she did not give us very much in the way of what could be better, or of what is happening as a result of this legislation. Perhaps his words will be heard by those on the Front Bench.
As everyone in this Chamber is aware, we on the SNP Benches are trying to work our way out of this place. We do not always hold this place in the utmost respect, and today is another day that illustrates that, to be perfectly honest. The Minister took an intervention from me, said that she would answer my point and then sat down. She did not answer the intervention, did not respond to the point of order and did not give us very much in her speech at all. Then we have seen the Government Whips—my goodness, they have been busy today. We had seven withdrawals in the previous debate and something like 15 withdrawals in this debate. Madam Deputy Speaker, I take it that there is nothing you need to tell the House about why so many Conservative Members have had to withdraw from this debate.

Eleanor Laing: The hon. Gentleman is asking me, but I have absolutely no idea. Unfortunately, I have no responsibility whatsoever.

Alan Brown: I thank you for that, Madam Deputy Speaker. The way things are just now, I worry about why so many people are withdrawing. Hopefully, everything is all in order. We know that the Whips usually try to force people to speak in debates, especially debates that might be short or dry, so it is certainly unusual that the Whips have been pressuring their colleagues to withdraw from today’s debate.
I hope that you can show some forbearance, Madam Deputy Speaker, because as I thought there were so many speakers in the previous debate, I did not expect to be called so early in this one, so my notes are a wee bit haphazard; hopefully, you can bear with me on that.
I must commend the shadow Minister for her speech and for the amount of information that she covered. She highlighted the deficiencies that the Minister did not cover. She said that, in actual fact, when we talk about the movement of goods, one of the key issues is what it means for businesses and whether they are ready for this. We can talk about divergence in standards of the EU, but are businesses ready for what will happen on 1 January 2021? Have the Government given enough support to businesses? When we turn on the radio just now, it tells us all, “Get ready for Brexit”. That is all very well, but it does not actually tell us what we need to do. What is the point telling us to get ready, when there is no information that is clearly accessible to businesses about what they need to do? Are IT systems up and running? The companies need to know what they have to do to be able to export, and that is before we even get to divergence.
Just today, ironically, my office got a letter from the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, which is supposed to be aimed at all businesses, but I can assure the Minister that although that letter might be a bit of propaganda, it does not clear up what businesses need to do going forwards.

Patrick Grady: I hear that from businesses across my constituency as well. A lot of them do not know exactly what they are supposed to do or how they are supposed to prepare. The simple solution to this surely is to extend the transition period, as we called for in our Opposition day debate before the summer. There would be no shame in the Government taking a little bit more time to get the negotiations right and to give people time. If they do not want to call it the transition period any more, they can come up with a different name for it—call it the implementation period or the adaptation period, or something like that. There would be no shame in it; we are in the middle of a global pandemic—no one foresaw this coming. It would do nobody any harm, and then one day they would get the glorious Brexit they are looking for, rather than the cliff edge that we seem to be barrelling towards.

Alan Brown: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I am pretty sure that many businesses across the UK would agree with what he said. It would be a simple, common-sense approach. It could be called the emergency covid implementation period—something that would give businesses a bit more certainty in the short term, while the Government sort out the mess.
The key question I had for the Minister earlier is about where we are on the consent of the devolved nations. Importantly, what discussions have been had with the devolved nations about what will happen if the UK Government wants standards to diverge from those of the EU? What would that mean in terms of how the devolved nations operate? What will it mean going forward? Are they going to ride roughshod over the wishes of the devolved Administrations, as with the UK Internal Market Bill and the shared prosperity fund, which was a mechanism to bypass the wishes of the devolved Administrations? Is that what we are looking at? It is symptomatic of the entire Brexit process and debacle.
I looked at the explanatory memorandum at the weekend—unusually for me, on Saturday night I was sad enough to read an explanatory memorandum. It said that the Welsh Government had granted consent, but the Scottish Government had not. The explanatory memorandum has now been changed and does not reference either the Welsh Government or the Scottish Government. It would be great if the Minister would clear up where things are on that. I would be happy to take an intervention—I am still happy to take an intervention. I see there are none coming.
I refer to a letter from Ivan McKee to Michelle Ballantyne MSP, convenor of the Economy, Energy and Fair Work Committee. He said:
“The UK Government is seeking to lay the SI as soon as possible in order to secure a debate in the UK Parliament before the end of the year. This timeframe means that the SI would need to be laid before Scottish Parliament consent is confirmed, however Mr Zahawi’s letter states that they will not debate the SI until consent is received, therefore the Scottish Parliament should have the usual 28 day period in which to scrutinise the notification.”
In the preceding paragraph, he also says:
“Scottish Ministers therefore consider that consenting to the regulation remains appropriate.”
The Scottish Government have indicated that they are willing to consent to the SI and are willing to work with the UK Government on it. The UK Government committed not to debate the SI until consent was given. As we are now debating the SI, I ask the Minister again whether consent has been formally given. Perhaps we can assume it has not been; it would be great if the Minister could clear that up later on.
This is about divergence. I understand the UK wants to protect itself from challenges. We can understand that—there is a need to have some legal protections—but the Minister did say it is not a precedent to diverging. Could she confirm that? Why would we want to diverge from the EU, especially at the moment, when we are still negotiating this trade deal that really determines the future of the UK, particularly in the short term, on 1 January? What is the status of the trade deal discussions? Surely the UK thinking about diverging has a massive impact on the trade deal because the trade deal will confirm what divergences are possible or not. It seems to me that the cart is before the horse. We can talk about taking back control, but unless the UK Government are capable of joining up the dots in the big picture, this SI matters not a jot.

Patrick Grady: I suppose we should commend the right hon. Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) for turning up and contributing to this debate. Taking back control was supposed to be what it was all about,  and where are they? Where are the Tories—the European Research Group, the Maastricht rebels and all the rest of them?
We had the same last night with the statutory instrument that directly amended primary legislation passed by the Scottish Parliament. Fair enough, it was relatively technical in nature, as is this measure, but it goes to the point of respect for the devolution settlement, and it goes to the point of democratic accountability that Brexit was supposed to bring forward.
Was the Labour Front-Bench spokesperson not right when she said that when the Government force through relatively technical stuff such as this statutory instrument what they are doing is driving a coach and horses through the devolution settlement, and they are doing our work for us, because they are undermining the case for the Union?

Alan Brown: I wholeheartedly agree. The shadow Minister used the phrase “rocket boosters” under the argument for independence, and I hope we do have these rocket boosters in place and getting fired up right now.

Alex Cunningham: Despite the fact that we share nationality, we do not share that particular ambition for separation. Some things about that worry me a lot if Scotland does eventually go independent. One is, do I get a passport? But more important than that, will I still get my supply? Will the divergences be in place for me to get my square sausage, my Scottish black pudding, my sliced sausage and, of course, my supply of Talisker?

Alan Brown: I will need to catch up with the hon. Gentleman in better surroundings, and we can share a sausage and Talisker, but of course he makes a serious point. In actual fact, the devolved nations want a common framework for agreeing how goods move about. To be honest, if we get our wish of independence, we are going to operate that way as well. We want to work with the other nations, and that is really important. But the way this UK Government are going about it, they want to impose their will on the different devolved nations, and it is like it or lump it. Hopefully, we can toast a wee dram to independence and we will discover we will still be friends after that as well, even though we do not share the same aims at the moment.

Patrick Grady: I am sure the hon. Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) will be entitled to a passport as well, but is not the point that Lorne sausage and Scotch whisky—the indicators of these vitally important products—are at risk because of the lack of the UK Government’s ability to conclude a deal with the EU? That is the kind of thing that ought to be being addressed through statutory instruments like this, Madam Deputy Speaker, and that is why it is relevant to this debate.

Eleanor Laing: For clarification, I was not suggesting that the hon. Gentleman was in any way out of order in the points he made. I am just really concerned about the square sausage.

Alan Brown: Yes, so we all share the same good taste in food then.
I agree with the point my hon. Friend made. Following up his earlier point about the contribution from the other Benches, I actually thought, “Oh my goodness, I’m going to have to listen to another 15 Conservative MPs tell me how great Brexit is going to be, how they are taking back control, how this is just another step in the way of taking back control and there’ll be wonderful trade deals.” So in one way there is a blessing: I do not have to listen to 15 speeches the same. But in another way, it is disappointing that they have not turned up here to actually do their job and actually say what they wanted to say. That is disappointing.

Alex Cunningham: The right hon. Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) actually talked about taking back control, but he talked about Parliament taking back control, yet we are seeing statutory instrument after statutory instrument giving more power to the Executive. Is that really Parliament taking back control?

Alan Brown: I agree absolutely 100%. Again, if Parliament was taking back control, we would expect parliamentarians in here doing their job debating it. But not only have the Executive taken more power, but we know there is more power invested in unelected bureaucrats who were advising the Prime Minister. I am sure nobody is shedding a tear that Dominic Cummings has actually left, but there is too much power in unelected bureaucrats behind the scene. It is double ironic when Brexiteers come here and talk about taking back control, and the Government were in hock to unelected officials.
We do have to wonder what divergences are planned by the UK Government, but also how these divergences are going to be managed. What is the process going to be? Will there be proper impact assessments undertaken, and will there be complete transparency on divergences that are proposed and what that means for businesses? How will we ensure that there are no unintended consequences by diverging in one area, which might affect more businesses adversely by stopping the export of their goods or preventing vital imports coming in? Those vital imports might prop up the supply chain of the key industries mentioned earlier, such as aerospace and automotive, because we rely on an EU-wide supply chain, with goods in the supply chain going backwards and forwards two or three times sometimes to create a finished product.

Kevan Jones: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is about not only the import of goods, but exports? One of our key exports is shellfish, which is very important to the Scottish economy. Does he agree that any barriers or disruptions of that could have a huge impact on the fishing industry in the UK?

Alan Brown: I agree wholeheartedly. That is the problem with the silo approach that the UK Government have taken sometimes. They talk about the fishing industry and fishing quotas and, sure, the fishing quotas are important, but for the Government they have become the symbol of Brexit, so fishing quotas seem to be getting looked at at the expense of everything else and that includes shellfish. We also rely on the free movement of people at the moment coming from the EU to do the processing of the fish and different things, so we might end up with bigger fishing quotas without the ability to process the fish and then export them. It is hugely  ironic, and that is why the Government need to always have their eye on the big picture and to join up the dots, rather than making headline announcements, looking for the headline in The Daily Telegraph. They need to understand what this means for ordinary people up and down the UK.

David Linden: I am sure my hon. Friend is just clearing his throat to get started, but on the issue of the free movement of people, is the issue of immigration not a red herring—if Members will pardon the pun—in the context of fishing? The UK Government said that this was all about reducing migration, but in order to do most of these trade deals, they will probably have to do a lot of visa-free travel for countries such as India?

Alan Brown: Absolutely. It is about looking at the big picture but, instead, the Government make big headline announcements to get some plaudits. It might help them to win an election in the short term, but what does that mean in the long term for the UK? That is something that the Tory party needs to consider.
I was speaking about divergences. I hope that the Minister will clear up how the divergence process will work and how it will be transparent, because we need to ensure that no divergences are given to some cronies who shout the loudest, because that again might have a wider impact on other businesses. So far, there have been allegations of cronyism in how covid has been dealt with, in terms of supplies of personal protective equipment. I would never accuse the Government of cronyism in giving contracts to people they know and who might favour the Tory party, but other people have done that, so I hope that the Minister will give us assurances that, going forward, any divergences from the EU will be done with the best interests of UK businesses at heart and, again, done with the wishes and agreement of the devolved Administrations.

David Linden: I would be so bold as to put on the record that this Government have been guilty of cronyism. But that is not just in the context of Brexit or the pandemic. For example, there is also the cronyism in terms of Richard Desmond and the Westferry scandal. So I would caution my hon. Friend. It is not just in terms of the pandemic that the Government have been guilty of cronyism; it goes much wider than that.

Eleanor Laing: Order. As the hon. Gentleman said, the point he has just made goes very wide, and very much wider than the particular statutory instrument before us. So I am sure that the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun will stick very strictly to the terms of the SI, which he has done very well so far in his long speech.

Alan Brown: Hopefully, I will not be too much longer—these notes might be deceiving.
A key point, as I said, is divergences and this is all about the movement of goods. Where are we with regards to the movement of goods in terms of a no deal? Are we still reliant on the EU making concessions, just because the UK is not in a position to check in common goods? If we are going to look at diverging, we have to be able to manage what we have got just now, never mind changing things going forward.
This was raised yesterday. The Minister at the Dispatch Box was not able to answer it but, on checking goods and the movement of goods, how many custom agents will be required? How many have been trained? Yesterday, the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) highlighted that the Cabinet Secretary estimated that 50,000 customs agents are needed, but that it is also estimated that only 10,000 have been trained to date. The Minister could not clear that up. This Minister has been taking lots of notes, so although she has not intervened, I am expecting a lengthy response. I hope that she can tell us where we are with training and employing customs agents and whether there will be enough in place on 1 January 2021.

David Linden: My hon. Friend has been incredibly generous in giving way. On the point about customs agents, Brexit was sold on the premise of us taking back control. Does he share my concern that “taking back control” was just something on the side of a bus and that when we look at the greater detail, we find that the Government have done very little preparation, which is worrying?

Alan Brown: Yes, it is very worrying. There has been very little preparation—all last-minute stuff. That is also why the Government are unable to engage with the devolved Administrations and businesses. They have not planned or done enough to get us to where they want to be—not where I or my hon. Friend want to be—in time for 1 January 2021.
The reality of Brexit preparations, as described by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East (David Linden), was illustrated yesterday by the passing of the Kent borders regulations, which allow the police to stop lorry drivers entering Kent because of the fear of the utter chaos at the border in January. That shows how the UK Government have not done enough and that more work needs to be done. Clearly, all those issues matter in the immediate short term and need addressing in the long term before we start looking at divergences of standards.
Is there any planned divergence for agricultural standards? That has been touched on and is important. The UK Government resisted protecting those standards for future trade deals in the Agriculture Act 2020. What does the SI mean regarding the UK’s ability to diverge from the EU? While the UK wants to avoid challenge, what does that mean for the devolved nations in terms of the UK Government protecting themselves? Will they impose their will on the devolved nations? I mentioned the point earlier, but on divergences, will the internal market Bill become the kicker through the back door by allowing divergences to be forced on the devolved nations against their will?
We do not accept that the UK Government have any legitimacy in imposing divergence from the EU acquis on Scotland’s behalf as a member of the UK. On democratic principles, we do not consent to allow any withdrawal of Scotland from the EU. That applies to the withdrawal agreement and any subsequent legislation used to enforce the unwanted and undemocratic divergence from the EU, which Scotland voted overwhelmingly to remain a member of.
We do not accept the economic impact of diverging from EU rules, and that also applies to leaving the transition period, particularly because, as we discussed, the economy faces unprecedented challenges as we try  to recover from the covid pandemic. We do not support or accept the need for the UK internal market Bill, which potentially allows divergences to be forced on the devolved Administrations against their wishes. We really need better co-operative working from the UK Government.
It would be ironic, when there seemed to be consensus from the Opposition that they would not oppose the SI, if, unless we start to hear decent responses from the Minister, there was a vote on it after all.

Eleanor Laing: I have been informed that the Member who is No. 5 on the call list has withdrawn from the debate, as have the Members who are Nos. 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 19. We therefore come directly to the Minister.

Amanda Solloway: I thank the House for its consideration of this statutory instrument and for the valuable contributions made to the debate.
I stress that my opening speech was short because these regulations do not result in any immediate change and will not introduce any changes for business. The regulations mean that if we choose to diverge from the EU requirements, either actively or by changing our legislation, or by not keeping pace with the EU regulations, we cannot be challenged under the EU treaty. As I have made clear—

Several hon. Members: rose—

Amanda Solloway: Apologies, but I will not be giving way.
As I have made clear, the SI is not a precondition for divergence, nor does the SI itself introduce any diversion from current laws. I have set out today, however, the importance of this SI for ensuring that we are not faced with legal challenges that seek to keep us in line with EU regulations. This will ensure that we have the freedom to regulate in Great Britain how we see fit, considering the impact on businesses and consumers, while ensuring that UK product safety remains one of the strongest in the world.
We have engaged with officials across all the devolved Administrations, sharing drafts of the SI and taking them through the changes as appropriate. Consent has been received from the Welsh and Scottish Governments as some of the changes are subject to devolved competence. The SI will not impact on Wales’s and Scotland’s ability to regulate those that fall under these areas of devolved competence. Articles 34 to 36 of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union will still apply in Northern Ireland by virtue of the Northern Ireland protocol. It is therefore not necessary for this SI to extend to Northern Ireland.

John Redwood: Will the Minister give way?

Amanda Solloway: Apologies, but I am not giving way.
Coming on to business participation, since the summer the Department has been rolling out an ambitious series of readiness events for businesses and has published a range of guidance, including on this requirement, on placing goods on the market from January 2021. Let me once again stress that this SI itself does not—

Kevan Jones: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Call me old-fashioned, but I thought that the usual convention for a winding-up speech is to respond to the debate. All the Minister appears to be doing is reading her civil service—

Eleanor Laing: Order. That is not a point of order—it is a point about the content of the Minister’s speech, which is entirely a matter for the Minister, and she does not have very long, so we must let her finish.

Amanda Solloway: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Let me once again stress that this SI itself does not introduce any changes for businesses.
These regulations give business greater certainty that as UK rules change they will not be rolled back after any legal challenges based on them. At the end of the transition period, EU treaty rights on the movement of goods stemming from articles 34 to 36 of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union will be retained in UK law unless they are removed by this SI. The UK will have its own regulatory regime after the end of the transition period. However, if retained, these EU treaty rights could impact our ability to diverge from EU regulation in the future. The EU treaty rights prohibit quantitative restrictions of equivalent measures on imports and exports, meaning that divergence from the EU regulatory requirements could result in a challenge. This SI will remove the EU treaty rights flowing from articles 34 to 36 of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union.
My Department published guidance on gov.uk on 1 September and 10 November detailing requirements on placing goods on the Northern Ireland market, as well as arrangements for access to the rest of the UK. My Department also issues regular transition bulletins that provide the latest readiness information. When the SI comes into force on 1 January 2021, it will protect our right to diverge from the EU regulations without being challenged under the EU treaty rights. I commend these regulations to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft Prohibition on Quantitative Restrictions (EU Exit) Regulations 2020, which were laid before this House on 9 November, be approved.

Eleanor Laing: I am going to suspend the House for a few minutes in order that we can have a change of Members and Ministers.
Sitting suspended.
On resuming—

Eleanor Laing: Order. I call Minister Lucy Frazer to move motion 5. It is not moved, so I call the Leader of the House to motion 6. It is not moved, so I call the Leader of the House to move motion 7. It is not moved, so we come to motion 8, relating to virtual participation in debate.

Patrick Grady: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Given that we have just clipped through three items of business and the Leader of the House has been handling the Dispatch Box, should the House not be suspended again so that the Dispatch Boxes can be sanitised and Members who want to participate in the next item of business can make sure that they are present?

Eleanor Laing: I appreciate the point that the hon. Gentleman makes, but I have taken the decision that, as we have just suspended and we have been sitting again for only two or three minutes, a further suspension is not necessary, and that the Leader of the House’s touching of the Dispatch Box was momentary.

David Linden: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. In the interests of physical hygiene, it may be the case that the Leader of the House will use the Government Dispatch Box next, but should he rise to move the next debate, there is a possibility, of course, that the Opposition Dispatch Box has been touched by another Member and should be cleaned in advance of the right hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) arriving.

Eleanor Laing: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s help in advising me on this matter, but I am satisfied that the necessary precautions have been taken to make sure that the Chamber and the Dispatch Boxes have been suitably cleaned and sanitised, and that we are that we are covid-compliant and that we will now proceed.

Virtual Participation in Debate

[Relevant document: Sixth Report from the Procedure Committee, Procedure under coronavirus restrictions: virtual participation in debate, HC 905]

Eleanor Laing: Mr Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of John Baron.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: As this matter has been much discussed in this House, I will move it formally.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That:
The Order of 4 June 2020 (Virtual Participation in Proceedings During the Pandemic (Temporary Orders)), as amended on 22 October, be further amended by adding at the end the following paragraphs:
() The Speaker shall draw up and publish a scheme to permit Members who are certified by a medical practitioner as clinically extremely vulnerable (or equivalent) according to relevant official public health guidance issued in England, Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland, to participate virtually in such debates as are designated for virtual participation by the Speaker.
() The scheme drawn up by the Speaker shall include:
(a) arrangements for demonstrating and registering eligibility for virtual participation in designated debates;
(b) any other provisions the Speaker considers necessary to secure the effective implementation of this Order.—(Mr Rees-Mogg.)

Valerie Vaz: Quite frankly, I am astonished that the Leader of the House has decided to move this motion formally. This issue has come before the House because we requested an urgent question, and we expected the Government to come up with some sort of mechanism whereby every Member of the House would be treated equally. I am surprised that the Leader of the House has nothing to say, as he will know that this is something that exercises all hon. Members.

David Linden: Has the right hon. Lady reflected, as I have, on the fact that for so long the Government have spoken about the importance of Parliament and taking back control, yet today a number of Conservative MPs have withdrawn from debates, and the Leader of the House has not moved motions? Does she share my concern that this Government are rather running out of control, and that the actions we have seen this afternoon are those of a Government who are perhaps panicking?

Valerie Vaz: I agree with the hon. Member. He will know how important it is for people with other responsibilities that there is a different way of voting. The motion states:
“The Speaker shall draw up and publish a scheme to permit Members who are certified by a medical practitioner as clinically extremely vulnerable (or equivalent) according to relevant official public health guidance issued in England, Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland, to participate virtually in such debates as are designed for virtual participation by the Speaker.”
Why is a certificate required? Hon. Members are not children. We are not going to school with a sick note. The Leader of the House has frequently said that he has needed that for PE, even though—we hope—one of his children might well play for England at cricket. It is  concerning that hon. Members who are serious and want to take part in proceedings have to produce a certificate from a general practitioner.

Kevan Jones: Does my right hon. Friend agree that this is also incredibly sensitive? Many Members may have a mental condition that is possibly not known to constituents or even to family members. Why should they have to divulge that? I have no problem personally with this, but particularly with mental health conditions, people may want not to make that widely known. Why should they have to do that?

Valerie Vaz: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I have frequently asked from this Dispatch Box, during the urgent questions and debates that we have had on this issue from the start, why on earth we should have to do that. We are all equal; we are all hon. Members. We were all elected on 12 December, equally. Why should we have to produce something to say that we wish to take part in basic proceedings and our basic democratic rights?

Chris Bryant: My right hon. Friend referred to Members not being children, and my view is that it is wholly inappropriate for the Government to treat Members of the House as children by suddenly pulling business. Is that not even worse given that the Leader of the House personally volunteered to the Committee on Standards this morning that we would be debating these matters this evening?

Valerie Vaz: I am extremely disturbed, because I had no notice, as shadow Leader of the House, that the Government were going to pull any business. There was nothing from the Leader of the House, I am afraid, to say that the business was going to be pulled, and I find that a huge discourtesy, because he is a very courteous person and we do get on in terms of getting the business done, although we may differ completely on the politics side of it. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that there were important matters to be debated and for hon. Members to know. I had a speech prepared so that hon. Members would know exactly who had been agreed to go through on the independent complaints and grievance procedure, and my hon. Friend says that he was informed that that debate would happen, so this is a huge discourtesy to the House. Will the Leader of the House please say why the business was pulled in such a way?

John Spellar: This is also a discourtesy because some Members of the House had considerable objections to the make-up of that particular body. They wanted to ask questions, for example, as to how much these people were going to be paid, along with their civil service salary. We also wanted to ask questions about the social composition of the grouping, but we have been deprived of that opportunity peremptorily—

Eleanor Laing: Order. The right hon. Gentleman is not addressing the matter before us. I am not having filibustering.

Valerie Vaz: Madam Deputy Speaker, that was a question that I am really happy to answer, because the matter arose as a result of the Chair of the Standards Committee explaining to the House why we have not  dealt with the first two motions. I feel that those motions are really important for the House, and I know that this is not the first time that my right hon. Friend the Member for Warley (John Spellar) has mentioned the make-up of that Committee. It is important for the House to know, in relation to those two motions that have not been moved, that we are not in the business of secrecy. We are in the business of transparency and hon. and right hon. Members need to know what is going on. Hon. Members are extremely busy at this time, and my right hon. Friend is correct in asking that question, because the question was posed earlier as to why the previous motions were not put before the House.

Eleanor Laing: I understand that the right hon. Lady is, as always, behaving honourably and that she is giving a background to the matter in hand, which she is addressing, but I am making it clear to the House that we are discussing the matter that is before us now, not the matters that might have been before us, had they been moved. There will be other opportunities to address those matters—

Chris Bryant: Will there?

Eleanor Laing: Order. No hon. Member will interrupt when I am speaking. It is perfectly reasonable for the right hon. Lady to give background to the remarks she is making, but I know that she will now address the matter that is before us, not the matters that are not.

Chris Bryant: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it, however, in order for the Leader of the House to tell a Select Committee of this House in the morning that he has made sure that we will be able to debate two matters this evening, and then not even to provide a change of business motion before the House or even to have the courtesy to notify those who might be involved in later debates? Is that really the way this House now proceeds?

Eleanor Laing: That is not a matter for the Chair, because it is in order for the Leader of the House to arrange matters today as he thinks fit. If it were not in order, I could not have allowed the things to happen that have been occurring this afternoon. It is all in order. The hon. Gentleman’s opinion on that is another matter, and I am sure that he will have the opportunity to express his opinion if I have the opportunity to call him. While I am making this clear, I note that there is no speaking list for this debate, so I will call people who were here at the beginning of the debate. For people who have come in after five o’clock I have allowed some leeway, because the debate started without a great deal of notice, and I appreciate that the right hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) had to hurry to get to the Dispatch Box on time. So those who were here in the Chamber before five o’clock will have an opportunity to be called to speak if there is time. Those who have come in after five o’clock, I deem not to have been here at the beginning of the debate.

Chris Bryant: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.
As I understand it, that means that you would not be calling me. I am the only person who is able to move the amendment—

Eleanor Laing: I had—up until this moment—every intention of calling the hon. Gentleman. I saw when he came into the Chamber, and I had every intention of calling him. His name is on the amendment and it is important that he is able to speak to it.

Aaron Bell: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I just want to be clear about what time I arrived here; as a member of the Procedure Committee, I would be grateful for the opportunity to catch your eye.

Eleanor Laing: I will take no further points of that kind; thank you. I call Valerie Vaz.

Valerie Vaz: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am disappointed, saddened and alarmed, because this House has effectively been gagged. We are unable to debate two very important motions that were on the Order Paper. With the greatest respect, hon. and right hon. Members should have the opportunity to raise issues in relation to those motions, and that is the purpose of interventions—interventions that the Leader of the House desperately wants because he says that they move the debate along.

Ruth Cadbury: My right hon. Friend is making a really important point about this House being gagged. I sat through several debates and questions when the Leader of the House said, “Look around you; we are gagged”—I do not know whether he actually used the word “gagged”, but he effectively implied that covid regulations meant that we could not debate properly. Like all organisations, we have had to adapt. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this is a proper piece of business that must be debated, and have the opportunity to be discussed fully and with respect, and that the Leader of the House’s attitude today contradicts every point that he has made when we have discussed virtual debating up to now?

Valerie Vaz: I want to address that point. We had a debate last week where a perfectly reasonable person, who passed all the tests that we could possibly have asked of her and more, was prevented from taking up a job. That was an absurd position. I would have liked to have asked the Leader of the House, and I wanted the House to know, whether any of the people who were on the list were members of a political party. That is the transparency we needed—the transparency, not the secrecy. This House is not about secrecy; it is about ensuring that there is open debate.

Nick Smith: My right hon. Friend has just raised a very serious concern about someone being blocked for a job for which they were in good stead. Would she tell us more about that?

Eleanor Laing: Order. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman was not in the Chamber when I made it very clear that the matter that we are debating now is the matter before us. We are not debating other matters that we might have debated at another time. I call Valerie Vaz.

Valerie Vaz: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Darren Jones: I am grateful to the shadow Leader of the House for giving way so quickly and for allowing me to contribute to her aerobic skills at the Dispatch Box as she stands up and down so quickly. On the issue of gagging Members of Parliament, each of us has our role as representatives of our constituencies, but some of us, as Chairs of Committees, are elected by this House on a cross-party basis to inform proceedings in this House. Consequently, Chairs of Committees need to be given the opportunity fully to debate the issues and to inform Members about our work. If virtual participation is not extended, there are a number of Committee Chairs who—as is the case today—cannot perform their function. Is this not just an extension of the gagging of the will of Parliament?

Valerie Vaz: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I know how assiduous he is in his work as the Chair of a Select Committee. That is a key point, is it not? Chairs of Select Committees cannot be here. I do not think it is our business to say who can be here and who cannot be here. All Members have to be treated equally. As the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) said, there is a hierarchy of hon. Members and we have strived not to have that hierarchy in this House.
Let me go back to the motion and deal with the point relating to “clinically extremely vulnerable”. This is not a happy way to deal with right hon. and hon. Members. It places them in a difficult situation. It is not that they do not want to be here, but that they cannot be here. It is about what they say about their families. They do not want to bring their families into debates. They do not want to bring their families into the limelight or to this place. They want to keep them away from it. However, hon. Members are having to say— sometimes in public, Madam Deputy Speaker—why they cannot be here and they are having to bring their families into it. I say that, because the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay cannot be here. He tabled the amendment, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant). He co-signed the amendment and he cannot be here for a very, very good reason.

Kevan Jones: The motion from the Leader of the House refers to Members who are clinically extremely vulnerable, but I know of at least one case in my own region where a Member has not been here because her husband is undergoing cancer treatment. She cannot attend because he is very vulnerable. They live in a house that does not have an east wing to enable him to isolate from her. The motion would not cover extreme cases like hers, would it?

Valerie Vaz: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. He hits the nail on the head and explains the difficulties for hon. Members who want to do their job but cannot. They have to make the difficult choice of whether to be here and balance family with their work.

Chris Elmore: Does my right hon. Friend not agree that it is the invasion of privacy that so many Members take umbrage at? Family members of Members are not elected and nor are they public servants. They have a right to privacy. A Member can do their job in any other circumstance, so why should family members be exposed by the idea that their health is somehow in the public interest? It simply is not. That is what so  many Members across the House find so disingenuous about what the Leader of the House and the Government are doing. They are putting families in the public eye and they do not deserve that. In fact, they deserve a lot better than that.

Valerie Vaz: My hon. Friend is right. We have a very difficult job to do anyway. As I said to the right hon. Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley) and her Committee, some people like to say what they had for breakfast on Instagram, but some people do not want to do that. Some people do not want to say anything about their lives. We are forced to do it sometimes. We are forced to tweet and do various other things that do not come naturally to many of us—I can’t do it, actually. But he is absolutely right that this is a privacy issue. Hon. Members have to decide what they say in the public sphere.
Madam Deputy Speaker, you know that when our right hon. and hon. Friends were pregnant and having wonderful babies—something so natural—they were trolled. They were trolled for doing what they needed to be doing, which was to be at home with their children when they had just given birth. I remember being in the House during the debates in which they had to explain that they were not the laziest MP in the world but were actually looking after their new-born. That was the most terrible thing and it was clarified only as a result of the debates in this House, which is why this is such an important venue.
This is the most important venue: people look to the Chamber to hear about what is going on. Unfortunately, sometimes we talk rubbish, and I am the biggest person to do that—[Hon. Members: “No!”] It is pantomime season! Sometimes we do, but the Official Reporters have to write down every word, and we sound wonderful when we read it back—when we dare to.

Karen Bradley: I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) will not mind my mentioning him, because we have been in communication today about this debate potentially taking place. His greatest regret is that he cannot be part of this debate. He secured an urgent question that enabled him to take part in our scrutiny proceedings and raise his point, but he cannot be here to take part in this debate because he has made the health of his family and his wife—he has been very public about that—his priority. We all know that he is working his socks off at home. Does the right hon. Lady agree that he is a great constituency MP and is working incredibly hard for his constituents?

Valerie Vaz: I absolutely agree with the Chair of the Procedure Committee. The hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay had the courtesy to email me before the start of this debate. He told me about the difficulty; I shall not repeat it, but it is safe to say that he is not able to be here today.
That great intervention from the Chair of the Procedure Committee gives me an opportunity to raise the incredible work done by her and members of her Committee, who are scattered all around the House—[Interruption.] She is pointing to them and I am trying to find them.

John Spellar: Does my right hon. Friend, like me, wonder a little at the paradox that we have here today? The Leader of the House has often waxed lyrical about the need for Members of Parliament to be here to debate, yet he pulled a fast one to pull two of the debates that we wanted to have.

Valerie Vaz: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. I still do not have an answer to that. I hope that I will get an answer, partly because the normal courtesies of the House were not applied and I was not even informed—I was waiting to come in to speak and the motions were just not moved. That is not the right way to do business.

Wes Streeting: I believe I made the Chair’s curfew on speeches, so I will not intervene a lot. To go back to the point about childcare, last week more than a million pupils throughout the country missed out on school, and most of them were forced to self-isolate. This pandemic is throwing into chaos lots of parents’ routines. Does my right hon. Friend agree not only that it often impacts women and mothers disproportionately, but that if we proceed on the basis suggested by the Leader of the House, lots of dads in this place are not going to be able to fulfil the responsibility to their children that they want to fulfil? That is why the motion is wholly inappropriate and the amendment is very welcome.

Valerie Vaz: My hon. Friend makes an important point and I absolutely agree with him. We are now moving to a different stage—this is why we were part of the change of the hours—because many young men came into the House and there were some fathers who also wanted to be hands-on parents.

David Linden: rose—

Valerie Vaz: The hon. Gentleman is one of them and I shall give way in a moment. That is why this is so important: the amendment that has been tabled is an equalising amendment that will mean everybody is treated the same.

David Linden: Is the shadow Leader of the House, like me, struck by the perceived hypocrisy on the part of the Government and in particular on the part of the Lord President of the Council? In some respects he comes to the House and talks about the great conventions of the House of Commons—he talks about the 1300s and we all refer to each other as hon. and right hon. Is not the specific the point that for so long the convention in this House has been that we are hon. Members, so the Leader of the House is trying to question Members’ honourable nature? Does the shadow Leader of the House see, like me, that there might just be a degree of contradiction on the part of Her Majesty’s Government here?

Valerie Vaz: I do. At the moment, as Members of Parliament we are not treated equally and we are not dealt with equally.
The Leader of the House says that he likes interventions and wants us here in the Chamber, so I am quite happy to take as many interventions as possible, whether people want to speak later or not.

Jeff Smith: I suspect that I did not quite make the curfew, so I may need to intervene again. Further to the point made by my colleague from the Scottish National party, the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden), he is absolutely right about the behaviour of the Leader of the House today. The Leader of the House has appeared in the Chamber on many occasions championing Parliament and the rights of Members to participate in parliamentary debates and represent their constituents. Does my right hon. Friend share my sense of irony that in the motion the Leader of the House is doing his utmost to restrict Members’ ability to represent their constituents in Parliament? Does she wonder, like me, how he manages to look at himself in the mirror in the morning?

Valerie Vaz: It is appalling that, for some of our colleagues, their right to be here has been restricted in such an appalling way. As I said in a previous speech, and as we keep repeating over and over, we are approaching some of the most important legislation that this country has ever faced. We are coming up to the most important juncture in our history, when we leave the EU on 31 December. Before that, we have to do something with the agreement, whatever it is and whenever it is made. We look forward to statements on that. To give effect to that agreement, legislation will be required, and it has to be introduced before 31 December. As a result of this motion, unless the amendment is agreed to, our colleagues will be prevented from taking part in a debate on one of the most important pieces of legislation ever to come before the House.

Fleur Anderson: Does my right hon. Friend share my bafflement that, as soon as there was a health need, the Prime Minister was allowed to participate remotely, yet he was not immediately clinically vulnerable? Other Members, however, are not allowed to speak. Does she share my view that all constituents are equal in electing us and should be equally represented? [Interruption.]

Valerie Vaz: I do not know whether my hon. Friend wants to intervene on me again. Perhaps she would want her question to be heard properly—there was a fair bit of heckling—so does she want to ask it again?

Fleur Anderson: I hope that I can now be heard. Does my right hon. Friend share my bafflement that the Prime Minister could speak under arrangements for virtual proceedings, although he does not have a clinically vulnerable condition that we know of? It is quite right that we should not know any of the ins and outs—

Eleanor Laing: Order. That means that the hon. Lady should sit down. I am making a point of order. Let us make sure that we get the facts correct about what we are debating. The motion before us is about participation in debates. Participation in questions, urgent questions and statements is a different matter which has been dealt with. In questions, urgent questions and statements, every Member has the right to participate virtually. I just want to make sure that the facts are correct, because that is a matter for the Chair.

Valerie Vaz: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for clarifying that. I think my hon. Friend was trying to say—and I know that Mr Speaker has made a ruling on  this—that both the Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister should be here on equal terms, just as Ministers are here on equal terms. Mr Speaker has made it very clear that he wants Ministers here, which is why we are all here—he wants shadow Ministers and Ministers. It is about equality between the two parties, and the two parties being treated the same. We saw what happened with the Prime Minister. We do not know what happens behind the scenes, and we do not know who is helping under the lectern and so on. The fact is that he is here to answer questions asked on behalf of the Leader of the Opposition—

Andrew Griffith: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it in order that the Opposition party is clearly trying to filibuster and talk out a motion that will see our clinically shielding colleagues given a voice in this House? [Interruption.]

Eleanor Laing: Order. If there were any filibustering taking place in this Chamber, it would not be in order and I would stop it immediately. The right hon. Lady is perfectly in order. She has taken a great many interventions and she has every right to do so.

Valerie Vaz: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Alan Brown: Let me go back to the guidance that the Deputy Speaker gave earlier about this being all about participation in debate. Clearly, the Leader of the House is trying to control who participates in debate. We know he is absolutely obsessed with physical participation in debate, so is it not disgraceful that the Government forced 20 Back-Bench Tories to pull out of physically participating in a debate earlier on a statutory instrument? The Government then pulled the Prisons (Substance Testing) Bill money resolution, taking 24 people off the call list. They then did not move the motion on the independent expert panel, taking 10 people off the call list. They then did not move the motion on the Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme investigations: Commons-Lords agreement, taking 10 people off the call list.

Eleanor Laing: Order. I have already made it very clear, and I know the hon. Gentleman is one person who has certainly been in this Chamber all afternoon, that we are debating the matter before us, not what might have been debated previously.

Valerie Vaz: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that that is a bit concerning. At one point I thought that the Conservative Members were all at No. 11 being primed by the Chancellor on tomorrow’s statement. I thought that everyone was at a party, with drinks, canapés and things like that.
Let me just go back to the point about the right hon. Member for Staffordshire Moorlands, the Procedure Committee and its work—I was going to come on to that, but I will do so now. I have here two reports, its first report of Session 2019-21, “Procedure under coronavirus restrictions: proposals for remote participation” and its sixth report, “Procedure under coronavirus restrictions: virtual participation in debate”. The Procedure Committee has been extraordinary in the work it has done. It has done that work quickly, and I, too, pay tribute to Martyn Atkins, the Clerk. I was lucky to be  on the Health Committee when he was a Clerk there. We were lucky to have him on that Committee. He was very assiduous, as were all the Clerks there. I have read all the reports, including the latest one. We did not have enough time to debate it on Thursday—we all just got a question each—but it is so important. I do not know whether right hon. and hon. Members have read it in its entirely. I could read it out, but it makes very important recommendations, one of which is:
“We do not consider that there is a justifiable case for eligibility for virtual participation in debate to be determined by reference to clinical vulnerability. Nor do we consider it appropriate to determine eligibility on a basis different from that for virtual participation in scrutiny proceedings. We therefore recommend that the criteria for eligibility for virtual participation in all House proceedings be made uniform at the earliest opportunity.”
This is the earliest opportunity.

John Spellar: Is it not utterly disrespectful for the Leader of the House and the Cabinet to disregard the House’s Committees, whose members are elected by both parties and whose Chairs are elected by the whole House? Is that not utterly contemptuous of the House and its Members?

Valerie Vaz: My right hon. Friend is right. It is concerning that Chairs of Select Committees, who are elected by the whole House, cannot participate. This is a cross-party report—a report that Members can amend but have not amended—which says that everybody should be treated equally in virtual participation. It is possible; we did it right at the beginning.

Chris Elmore: On the point about virtual participation being available to everybody, it has been confirmed several times—and I raised this with the Leader of the House last week—by the Clerk of the House and Clerks responsible for Chamber management and the broadcasting service that there is now enough capacity for Members to take part virtually in all proceedings of the House. Despite what the Leader of the House has said, there were trials some months ago of virtual Public Bill Committees, in which Members on both sides of the House participated. Since then, that technology has improved and the capacity has increased.
The reality is that for all Members, no matter what their situation may be, this is now a simple process of the Government—or, as it should be, the House—saying to the Clerk, “This is the will of the House, and we would just like all Members to be equal.” The Leader of the House’s excuse that it stops and stifles debate and limits intervention is simply not correct. Does my right hon. Friend agree that most Members would accept not having interventions, on the basis that it is a small price to pay to allow all Members to take part in crucial debates on the Floor of the House?

Valerie Vaz: I absolutely agree. I will come on to the capacity in a minute, but I want to spend some time on these Procedure Committee reports, because—

David Linden: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Over the last couple of minutes, I have observed that quite a number of Government Whips have entered the Chamber. Can you confirm that, in the event that  Government Whips tried to move a closure motion, that would in effect be muzzling the House and that a closure motion should not be granted?

Eleanor Laing: I have noticed that there are Government Members on the Government Benches. Who they are and what office they hold is not a matter for me. The Chamber is open to all Members to be here whenever they wish, as long as there are no more than 21 on the Government Benches at a time. A closure motion would be a matter for the Chair. Should one be moved, I would consider carefully how many people have spoken, how long the debate has been, how many interventions there have been and how many important points have been made. I am therefore listening very carefully to the debate.

Valerie Vaz: It was slightly alarming—

Karen Bradley: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I apologise, but could you confirm that if a closure motion were moved, proxy votes would not count towards it?

Eleanor Laing: There are various stages of a closure motion: the granting of the closure motion, the taking of the closure motion and the substantive question that may or may not then be put. Proxy votes do not count for the calculation of the quorum necessary, which, as the right hon. Lady knows well, is 100.

John Spellar: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Could you clarify whether it is 100 Members voting or 100 Members voting in the Aye Lobby?

Eleanor Laing: I will come back to that point.

Valerie Vaz: As I was saying, I think Members were slightly alarmed by a group of people walking with a purpose. It is usually the Whips who do that, as John Major used to say.
I will get back to the debate at hand, the Procedure Committee report and what my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Chris Elmore) said about the participation of all hon. Members. I still have not finished with this idea of clinical vulnerability to a disease. I think, and I said at the time, that it is an unnecessary, bureaucratic way of saying that hon. Members can or cannot be here. It is in some ways quite humiliating for hon. Members to have to go to their GP and say, “Please could I have a note to say that I am clinically vulnerable so that I can take part in a debate?”

Jessica Morden: I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way because it gives me an opportunity to speak on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Vicky Foxcroft), who is not able to be here with us today and is sitting watching, although she would like to participate. She never wanted to have to say that she was clinically extremely vulnerable or to tell people about her rheumatoid arthritis but has been forced to do so. Does my right hon. Friend agree that forcing people to do this is very unfair?

Valerie Vaz: I agree, and we have seen how effective our hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Vicky Foxcroft) is when she speaks at business questions, and when she asks questions. She is so frustrated because she has done some absolutely fantastic work on knife crime and wants to be able to take part in debates, but she cannot. We need to find a way to enable her to do that, and the only way is if the amendment is passed.

Alan Brown: The right hon. Lady makes an important point about the fact that the motion would force hon. Members to go to their doctors, get certification and submit that. Is it not also the case that it is then in the public domain that a certain number of MPs are extremely clinically vulnerable, which will lead to members of the public saying, “I wonder what is wrong with my MP, or that MP.”? That is the real issue. It is effectively breaching confidentiality, whereas if the amendment is passed, it is just a public health reason that covers Members, their families and anything else.

Valerie Vaz: That is absolutely right. We all know as hon. Members that we are only as good as our last election, and we have to fight like mad to be elected.

Patrick Grady: I thank the shadow Leader of the House and appreciate that she is rising to the opportunity of laying out the fundamental lack of logic in what the Leader of the House is doing. After weeks, if not months, of standing at the Dispatch Box saying that virtual participation in debates was simply not possible and simply not desirable, he has now conceded that in some circumstances it is possible and desirable. If it is possible and desirable for some people, why should it not be possible and desirable for everybody who needs it? There is no logic.

Valerie Vaz: I agree. This is just one small further step that we are asking the Leader of the House to make, which we know he is capable of doing. On the clinically vulnerable, it is very difficult for right hon. and hon. Members to have to go to a medical practitioner.

Owen Thompson: On the point about the clinically extremely vulnerable, does the right hon. Lady not agree that the fact that the definition of clinically extremely vulnerable is different in Scotland and in England raises further issues? Which criteria would we follow?

Valerie Vaz: If someone wanted to help to us to decide what the definition is, that would be very useful.

Shaun Bailey: I have much respect for the right hon. Lady, my constituency neighbour, but when people at work are asking for reasonable adjustments, they have to go in to their GP and get certificates, so is it the case of one rule for us and one rule for everyone else? Perhaps she will tell our workers in the Black Country why that is acceptable for us here, but not for them.

Valerie Vaz: I do not know whether—

Nick Smith: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am a bit perplexed about the voting rights of Members tonight. I would be ever so grateful if you  could confirm whether the Chair needs 100 Members to go through the Aye Lobby for any closure motion to be agreed.

Eleanor Laing: Yes, that is correct. Where were we? Valerie Vaz.

Valerie Vaz: I am still here. We are Members of Parliament. We are elected to do a job—we are elected to pass legislation. We cannot do that. We are in the middle of a pandemic, and when we first started with this pandemic, we were able to have a virtual Parliament —we were the first Parliament in the world to do that, with the expertise that we have here. We were able to undertake every single aspect of our work, and each hon. and right hon. Member was able to do that on an equal basis.
That is not what we are saying here—this is something different. This is just saying that those who are clinically vulnerable can take part in a debate. Hon. Members have made the point of the hon. Member whose name is on the amendment, the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay, and many other hon. Members, who are looking after and caring for those who are clinically vulnerable and therefore cannot be here, because if they come down here they expose themselves to the virus. We know it is on the estate. We know that there have been people here who have been tested. Many of us have been tested and some have tested positive, including the Prime Minister, who had to take part in a virtual Prime Minister’s questions.

Alison Thewliss: Does the shadow Leader of the House agree that it is not just the arriving in this place that makes people vulnerable? Members from Scotland have much further to travel and multiple public transport journeys, if they can get public transport that is appropriate. The Caledonian Sleeper would have allowed someone to travel and meet very few people while doing so, but the Caledonian Sleeper to Aberdeen and Glasgow is currently not running. Does she agree that Members are made vulnerable by travelling on public transport in the way that we have to?

Valerie Vaz: I agree. We do not know where we can catch it. What we are doing is exposing families, friends, everyone—people that we work with here. We are in the middle of a pandemic and people are dying. I know people in my constituency—people who have been long-standing friends—who are now dead as a result of this virus. This is extremely serious. All we are asking is for right hon. and hon. Members to take part in debates. Why should they be excluded from the European legislation that is going to come through now? Why should they be excluded from that?

Chris Bryant: In answer to the point made by the hon. Member for West Bromwich West (Shaun Bailey), I have heard the same argument from the Leader of the House as well: we should not be any different from the rest of the public. I wholly agree with that. However, I think they misunderstand Government rules. The Government rules, as laid out by the Prime Minister yesterday in Parliament, are very clear. He said yesterday that, even in tier 1, if someone can work from home, they should work from home. That is the rule. The other part of the rule is that businesses have to do everything  to make it possible for people to work from home if they possibly can. Those are the rules for the rest of the country; they should be rules for us here too.

Valerie Vaz: That is absolutely right. The Prime Minister did say that—
“work from home wherever possible.”—[Official Report, 23 November 2020; Vol. 684, c. 601.]
We can work from home, we have worked from home as Members of Parliament, and other Members of Parliament want to continue to work from home, and that is being denied. We are exposing hon. Members’ families, and the hon. Members, who are travelling backwards and forwards.
I take umbrage slightly with the Leader of the House. He thinks that if we are doing something remotely, we are not working. I have talked to many hon. Members. Zoom is horrible—whatever anyone says, it is awful. You have to concentrate, you have to stare—it is just absolutely terrible. What makes people really nervous about the whole thing is worrying about being late—suppose you have not logged in on time? Who is walking around in the background? Have you got the right background? It is terrible. Are you dressed properly? We would rather be here, of course we would, but we cannot be.

Andrew Griffith: The shadow Leader of the House has been generous to both sides in taking interventions. Having been in the past party to some of the deliberations of the Procedure Committee, I understand that there are strongly held views on both sides. I just put it to her and her colleagues that, tonight, what you are doing is letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. There is a motion that will give our colleagues who are clinically vulnerable the opportunity to participate virtually and what you are doing tonight will deprive them of that opportunity—

Eleanor Laing: Order. What the right hon. Lady is doing, not what “you” are doing.

David Linden: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I know that the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith) is new to the House, but can you just clarify to him, given that he is such an expert on the procedures of this House, that he should not refer to you, because that is, of course, you and not the right hon. Lady on the Front Bench?

Eleanor Laing: Yes, I am very happy to clarify that. As ever, the hon. Gentleman has made his point very well.

Chris Bryant: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Could you not confirm that, as the hon. Gentleman just said that there is the perfect and the good on offer, if he votes for the amendment he gets the perfect and he does not discard the good at all?

Eleanor Laing: That was not a point of order.

Valerie Vaz: That was a point of clarification. Perhaps we can include those in the procedure in future.
Let me deal with the point that the hon. Member for West Bromwich West (Shaun Bailey) made. The point is that hon. Members cannot take part in the most important part of what we do, which is debate. We are excluding a whole group of hon. Members from taking part in a debate, and to take part in a debate is what they want. The fact is we had this process and we had this procedure and it worked.

Lilian Greenwood: I think it is important to recognise that we do not just have to go back to the situation that pertained in May. The Procedure Committee’s report makes it absolutely clear that, because of the substantial work undertaken by the parliamentary audio-visual service since the discontinuation of hybrid proceedings, we have
“a more resilient broadcast infrastructure, with the capacity to facilitate virtual contributions to debate”
in a much more proper way. Is not that quite a change that needs to be reflected in our decision making?

Valerie Vaz: My hon. Friend is right and that is the point that I was just about to come on to. As I started to say, we were the first Parliament to become a virtual Parliament and we were the envy of the world. Other Parliaments have tried to do what we are doing now and what we did previously and what we are sort of on the way to doing. But I think we are doing a great discourtesy to the people who have worked so hard to get us to this stage. Yes, the Leader of the House will say that we broke down; that the House of Lords broke down. They are able to participate in every aspect of their work virtually. They broke down only once in 62 votes. We had a failure at the card reader, too. I do not think that we broke down whenever we had debates and people took part.
The point is that the broadcasters have worked so hard to get us to this place. One of the broadcasters said to me, “Please say that we are now doing seven to eight hours of virtual proceedings in the House of Lords and they are able to have two Chambers—they are able to have two sets of proceedings going on at the same time.” We have a huge amount of talent, not just in the House, but in the country. We can use that talent to ensure that we here in this Parliament, every single person, no matter what happens, can take part. People will have seen the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch), but there are others who perhaps do not want to ask questions and state what their medical conditions are, but who also want to take part. We all have a responsibility to our constituents because we were elected. This is a democracy and we want to take part in every single aspect of our work, and we can.

Jeff Smith: I am grateful, once again, to my right hon. Friend for giving way. She is being very generous. She is making an important point about the improvements in the technology. The House of Lords has very capably been able to facilitate its debates. We rarely have problems in this Chamber. I have heard the Leader of the House say many times that the technology does not work, that it has faults, and that we cannot introduce it for debates because of those occasional faults. In asserting that position, is he not, in the words of his colleague, the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith), making the perfect the enemy of the good?

Valerie Vaz: I agree. We did have the good and we did have the perfect, and for some reason we cannot have that any more—although we might because the amendment may get passed. The hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith), who is not in his place at the minute, said that it is the Opposition, but it is not—this is cross-party. If he looks at the amendment, it is signed by the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) and the Procedure Committee has agreed—all sides, all parties.

John Spellar: Is my right hon. Friend as surprised as I am that, given the huge success of our excellent technical operators, a Government Minister has not used the expression “world beating”? In this case it is justified, but it is often a slightly overblown expression; it is normally used by the Secretary of State for Health and the Prime Minister.

Valerie Vaz: It is world beating, but we do not use the term in the same way as they use it, because all their world-beating test and trace and everything else do not appear to be world beating.

Alan Brown: I thank the right hon. Lady for giving way; she is being generous. Given that we have this technology, which can be used for the benefit of all Members, and going back to an intervention about making MPs go to a GP because some constituents might have to go to a GP, is it not a fact that GP practices are run on a very restricted basis now? People cannot get routine appointments because of the measures in place, so why on earth would we try to make MPs go to GPs, taking up valuable space and time that our constituents might want?

Valerie Vaz: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. Obviously, I have not put the policy through, so I cannot answer his point, but it is about asking a medical practitioner to say that someone is clinically vulnerable.
Let us go back to the broadcasting and how brilliant it is.

Nick Smith: I thank my right hon. Friend for her contribution. She is doing a brilliant job, taking on board colleagues’ points on both sides of the House. She is taking the issue forward really well. Does she agree that colleagues across Parliament are starting to use Teams and Zoom proficiently now?

Valerie Vaz: They do, but we do not necessarily like them—especially when they break down and we are not linking in the right place.
The point about broadcasting is important because we have got to the stage where, on Zoom, people can put their hands up, so that could be a form of intervention. People have been able to undertake debates—I think this was mentioned at business questions—and, in some European Parliaments, they have been able to take interventions. If that is the key thing that seems to be stopping the Leader of the House from going to the next stage—making that giant leap—interventions can be done. However, we know that hon and right hon. Members can take part in debate, because we did it before. The plea that we all make is that they want to do so on an equal basis, without having to tell anyone that they are incapacitated in some way, or that they are shielding other people in their family in some way.

Jonathan Gullis: The right hon. Lady is being generous with her time. Does she share my concerns about when I have to go back to Stoke-on-Trent, Kidsgrove or Talke and look school teachers, police officers, fire officers, GPs, doctors and nurses in the face and ask them to sacrifice themselves and to be willing to make some sacrifice by going in to look after people? In the end, they are public servants, as are we. Does she not agree that this would send completely the wrong message—that we have some sort of special protected status, compared with those who also work in the public sector?

Valerie Vaz: I would say: do not look them too closely in the face. We have to be 2 metres apart because that is what the Government guidance is. But the hon. Member is back to the same old thing. We are doing our work. I do not know but I hope not a single hon. Member does a face-to-face surgery. I started my telephone surgeries in March because I knew this was coming up; we had heard about the pandemic from China in December. So I think it is important, if the Government are going to give out guidance—[Laughter.] I do not think it is very funny when we are talking about people dying of covid and, if you are too close to them, they could pick it up—[Interruption.] Let me carry on.
So it is back to the same old thing. We are working. We are just working in a different way. I do not know any hon. Member who is not working 24/7. Absolutely every single hon. Member or right hon. Member is opening mail, or checking their WhatsApp. They are working. We are all working. We have a completely different job, and it is right that we do that. On people contacting us in the workplace when they want reasonable adjustments, that is our job. People contact us because sometimes employers are unreasonable. Sometimes people and institutions are unreasonable. People contact us to write those letters for them to make sure that they can get their work done. I am talking about reasonable adjustments.

Wes Streeting: We have heard key public sector workers invoked: “How will we look them in the face?” They will understand the rules perfectly well; they are abiding by them. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, given the reported public sector pay freeze, I do not know how any Conservative MP would look any public sector worker in the eye?

Valerie Vaz: I think that is a really important intervention. Perhaps the hon. Members would go to their public sector workers, look them in the eye and say, “Sorry, we couldn’t find any money for you to have a pay rise, but we”—[Interruption.] Well, I think it was an important intervention.
Let us go back to the broadcasters.

Shaun Bailey: Can I interrupt the right hon. Member at this point? Sorry, I wanted to raise it on a point of order, but can I just bring her back? I do not find death funny. I am sure my hon. Friends here do not find death funny. I actually have vulnerable people in my family that I have not seen in six months, so when she makes comments like that, I find it very offensive. So I would invite her to withdraw that comment and that slur against my hon. Friends, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall North (Eddie Hughes), because it is not appropriate.

Valerie Vaz: I really do not know what the hon. Gentleman is talking about. All I heard was people sniggering in the back. I heard people—[Interruption.] Oh my goodness, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Eleanor Laing: Order. Whatever we are debating, we will have a good-tempered and polite debate.

Valerie Vaz: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Can I just say this? When I was talking about the difficulties that our hon. Friends and right hon. Friends have taking part in debate, I just heard some sniggering from the Back Benches. Normally, I would just ignore it, but this is such an important debate, and I did not know what it was about.

Eddie Hughes: You made the joke.

Valerie Vaz: Joke? I was talking about broadcasting. We were talking about the public sector workers who are not going to get a pay rise apparently, but maybe the Chancellor will change his mind when he has heard this debate.
But let us go back to exactly what is happening here with this motion. It is discriminatory. How can we possibly carry on in this way when we have these two tiers of hon. Members? It is not fair, it is not right and it is not the way that we do things here. We need to treat every single Member equally. There is absolutely no justification.

Patrick Grady: On the point of equal treatment, the right hon. Member is right, because one of the first things the Government did under the proceedings under the pandemic motion was suspend the English votes for English laws procedures. They recognised that they would be practically unworkable, and they actually removed that distinction and that discrimination that Members from Scotland have experienced under the House EVEL procedures. Again, the Leader of the House has been tied up by his own logic, because he is making some concessions to some people, but he is not making them available to everybody. His own logic is his undoing here.

Valerie Vaz: The hon. Member is absolutely right. When the Government want EVEL, they have it; when they do not want it, they do not have it, even though SNP Members have made the arguments frequently. We are now getting to the point where this is discriminatory.

Fleur Anderson: I am grateful for the opportunity to mention discrimination. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this is a double discrimination—that not only are some people barred from being here and speaking, but they also cannot speak on behalf of their constituents? All the people who Members have been sent here to represent are discriminated against, as well as the Members themselves, so it is doubly hard.

Valerie Vaz: It is doubly hard for everyone not being able to take part in what we do in this House, which is to debate legislation. To debate—that is what the Leader of the House has said we should do, but hon. Members cannot take part.

David Linden: I have very much enjoyed the first hour of the right hon. Lady’s remarks and look forward to the next. I was reflecting on something said from the Conservative Benches a little earlier about reasonable adjustments being made. I was reflecting that pre-pandemic one of the greatest strengths that we had as Members of Parliament was the ability to come here and put things on the record; indeed, the Leader of the House tells us regularly that people have been able to come here and put things on the record since 1300. But of course, one of the difficulties for some our colleagues who do not have the ability to speak here is that they cannot get things on the record quickly with a point of order—something that many of us did at the beginning of the pandemic to call out bad practices from employers. Given that points of order are a good way of getting things on the record, does the right hon. Lady agree that getting some form of virtual participation in that regard might help some of our colleagues to call out bad employment practices?

Valerie Vaz: Yes. Hon. Members will also know the emails that we all get about particular pieces of legislation when they pass through the House. Whether it is here, in Westminster Hall or on petitions, Members cannot say how they voted or why they voted in a certain way, or talk about what the policy is. I do not know what hon. Members who cannot take part in debates say to their constituents; maybe I need to ask an hon. Member who is not here and cannot take part.

Jonathan Gullis: I am extremely grateful to the right hon. Lady for giving way again. She referred to the idea that our role here is to debate. Well, that is exactly what the Leader of the House is proposing. Those who are clinically vulnerable will be able to debate—or have I misunderstood what has been said?

Valerie Vaz: Yes, with the greatest of respect, I think that the hon. Gentleman has misunderstood. He will know that unless a Member certifies that they are clinically vulnerable, they will not be able to take part in a debate under virtual proceedings. That is where the difficulty lies, because there will be two different sets of hon. Members: those who will have to certify and those who cannot certify. For example, take the hon. Gentleman’s colleague, the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay, who has co-signed the amendment. It is not he who is clinically vulnerable; it is possibly another person who is, and he wants to protect them. Therefore, he cannot take part in the debate, and he should be able to. Why can he not take part in the debate without having to expose whichever person it is, who he would expose to the disease if he came here physically? That is the point, and that is why I say that this is a cross-party matter. It has nothing to do with politics or with anyone here. The only politics is that the Government seem hellbent on ensuring that people cannot take part in debates.

John Spellar: Has not my right hon. Friend exposed another flaw in this, which is the argument made by some Conservative Members that, “Well, you’ll have to go and get a sick note”? But if people have to do that, they hand the note in to their employer; it is not put on the front page of the local paper and out on social media, exposing to the rest of the world their—or in this case, even their family members’—condition. Whatever happened to medical privacy in all this?

Valerie Vaz: I think it has gone out of the window with this motion; my right hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is not just about privacy for hon. Members—apparently we can take it because we have thick skins, although I am not sure that we all do; some of us have thin skins. It is about protecting the families, who do not necessarily ask to be exposed in this way. They are not the ones who are tweeting or who are on Facebook. We are exposing them. I know of many such cases. A friend in the SNP is protecting members of her family, and she has said so publicly, but why should she be prevented from participating?

Peter Kyle: It has been suggested by Government Members that people in other workplaces have to get sick notes, but will my right hon. Friend clarify that they do not have to get those notes from a GP in order to use Zoom? We are asking to use Zoom to continue working, not to be signed off work.

Valerie Vaz: My hon. Friend is right, and that is why we have these debates. He is absolutely right—I am sure they will come to that in the end, but hopefully not. Let us return to the discriminatory nature of this motion.

Karen Bradley: The right hon. Lady is being incredibly generous with her time, and this is most certainly a full debate—I think we can all agree on that. Will she comment on remarks made by the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care at the Health and Social Care Committee earlier today? I was not able to catch it, but I have seen reported that he said we have to stop this British attitude of soldiering on, and that we should not be coming into work with sniffles and coughs because we will pass them on to other people. Does she agree that that is contradictory to some of the other things we are hearing?

Valerie Vaz: That is extremely contradictory. As a result of the Prime Minister being exposed to sniffles and coughs, he shielded and was given the ability to do his work in a different way. That is all that right hon. and hon. Members are asking for.
Let me give two examples of people who are very vociferous and active, including in the Chamber. My right hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge) is an amazing Member of Parliament, but she is finding that she has not got a voice any more. My hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) constantly badgers the Leader of the House during business questions, but he is now not able to do that. The Chair of the Education Committee, the right hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) loves coming into the Chamber—I have seen him—but he is not able to.

Jonathan Gullis: He has been here.

Valerie Vaz: I know, but not now.

Shaun Bailey: May I apologise to the right hon. Lady? I did not mean to barrack her before. It was very discourteous of me and I put on the record my apologies to her now.
We talked about the risk of notes being leaked, and my understanding—I ask the right hon. Lady to please correct me if I am wrong—is that we would hand any  sort of certification to the House authorities. Is she suggesting that that would not be a safe process, and that there is some risk that something might be leaked by the House authorities? I am sure she is not suggesting that, but will she clarify how such information might be leaked, were it to be given to the House authorities?

Valerie Vaz: No, I was not suggesting that at all, but as hon. Members know, no matter what happens, things get out. I gave the example of pregnant women or mothers who were not on the voting record because they were not here. That has now all changed, and that is what it took, which is why this debate is so important. We have stopped saying that people must be in the Chamber and voting, hence proxy voting, but it took the Procedure Committee and many debates to get that. That is why we are saying that we must treat people equally so that people outside cannot see any difference and everybody can take part in every piece of work done by the House.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Eleanor Laing: Order. While the right hon. Lady is on the subject of treating people equally, I appreciate that in her long speech she has taken an enormous number of interventions and covered almost every possible aspect of the debate. However, I am a little anxious that other Members should also have the chance to speak.

Valerie Vaz: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was about to finish. I ask hon. Members to read the amendment carefully. It simply says,
“with a public health reason”,
which is a wide definition.

Peter Kyle: My right hon. Friend talks about public health. GPs are quite busy at the moment because we are in the middle of a pandemic. Does she think that GPs have more important things to do right now than certify that MPs are okay—

Eleanor Laing: Order. The hon. Gentleman has not been here for the whole debate. We are not having any more long interventions. A lot of people wish to speak and we are addressing a specific motion, not GPs in general.

Valerie Vaz: The amendment states clearly
“a public health reason”
and no other reason. All Members would be treated equally and everyone could take part in the important debates that we will have on legislation on Europe. We were all elected on 12 December as equal Members of Parliament. I hope hon. Members will support the amendment and ensure that everybody can take part in debates.

Karen Bradley: It is lovely to see everybody bobbing up and down—we do not get to see that nowadays—and there is no call list. Goodness me, Madam Deputy Speaker, what days we hark back to! How much we want to get back to those halcyon days.
I am afraid that I was not able to hear what my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House said, because I was unfortunately caught unawares and did not know that the debate was about to start. I am grateful to him for the debate. He knows that last week, I called strongly for a debate on this matter, but it is a shame that it was done in such an unexpected and surprising way. I was on a call with the Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner and it felt discourteous to say to her, “I’m terribly sorry, but I need to rush to the Chamber because apparently I am about to take part in a debate.” I set that call up several weeks ago and I was therefore disappointed to have to say that I could not complete our discussions on important matters relating to human trafficking and slavery. I should say that I am co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on human trafficking and modern slavery.
I am also Chair of the Procedure Committee, which has issued six reports in this Session, four of which are on procedures under coronavirus. I thank all Committee members. A few have left us in the last few months, but we have a very active Committee and many of its members are in the Chamber, demonstrating that Procedure Committee members really do care about procedure.
We have worked incredibly hard to assist the House in considering what are appropriate proceedings and how we should change them to reflect the situation under coronavirus. I want to be clear up front: any recommendations by the Procedure Committee have been made on the basis of how we make the best of the situation. Nobody wants to be in this position. I keep using the word sub-optimal—my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has quoted me on it. The position is undoubtedly sub-optimal.
Other members of the Committee will recall that in our first meeting, we said that we would have to consider proceedings under coronavirus because things might change quickly. We first convened on 2 March. By 6 March, we had the Clerk of the House and the House authorities in to give us private evidence and a private briefing. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House was incredibly courteous in allowing time for me, as Chair of the Committee, to meet him privately to hear what the Government’s thinking was.
I remember that first briefing when Members heard, for example, “We will have to stay 2 metres apart.” It was the first time I had heard the term “social distancing”. None of us could comprehend the thought that the Chamber would have crosses on the Green Benches where we could not sit and that whole Benches would be out of bounds. None of us had any idea how that would function.

Kevan Jones: rose—

Karen Bradley: I give way to the august right hon. Gentleman and member of the Committee.

Kevan Jones: Will the right hon. Lady join me in thanking the staff and the Clerks, who from those early days have done some tremendous work to make the system the best that we can? Without that work, we could not have achieved what we have done so far.

Karen Bradley: The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I was going to come on to say that, but he gives me the chance to say it now. The House authorities have worked so hard and have made this House the envy of the world. The number of requests that the Committee receives from similar committees around the world to understand the temporary changes that we have introduced is astonishing.

Chris Elmore: rose—

Karen Bradley: I give way to another august member of the Committee.

Chris Elmore: Will the right hon. Lady also acknowledge that during a public evidence session, we had academics come in to say that, of all the devolved institutions and Parliaments in the world, we were world leading? The Leader of the House, the traditionalist that he is, was sector beating in terms of the facilities that were offered to Members of this House. It is such a shame that he is not willing to show that forward thinking now in ensuring that all Members are treated equally.

Karen Bradley: I thank the hon. Gentleman; I call him my hon. Friend, because he serves as the Committee’s vice-Chair and stands in for me when I am unable to participate, as I was not when I self-isolated, suffering, I believe, with covid. He is absolutely right. We had those comments from around the world. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House should take incredible credit for being world leading on this matter. He introduced revolutionary changes, changing our procedure in the most significant way for 700 years, I think it was.

Owen Thompson: rose—

Karen Bradley: I give way to another august member of the Committee.

Owen Thompson: I know that the right hon. Lady did a session with the Canadian Parliament, but when Committee members took part in a session with members of the Japanese Parliament, it was very frustrating that they were there asking us questions about how we were implementing this world-leading solution, only for us to have to tell them, “Yes, we were; unfortunately, the Government have now stopped that.”

Karen Bradley: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. It was slightly embarrassing, I think, for members of the Committee to have to say that, after saying that we did develop, at pace, the most incredible changes to our procedures and to the capability and capacity of our digital services in order to enable us to continue working.
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House often talks about the period of the hybrid Parliament between the Easter recess and the Whitsun recess as being somehow not effective. During that period, as I recall it, five or six Bills received their Second Reading—unopposed, in fact. When we did have votes, the Government won those votes handsomely. We were able to have debates on legislation, we were able to have general debates on the matter of covid; actually, this House did function.
My right hon. Friend often talks about Bill Committees. I hope that he will recall from our very first conversations about this matter that I shared his reservations about whether Bill Committees could meet in any other way than physical. However, as the hybrid Parliament included physical presence—I certainly participated physically during that period—I was always of the view that that could be managed and accommodated within the rules that we had. Of course, the difficulty with Bill Committees was finding rooms that were big enough to accommodate a Bill Committee socially distanced, and ensuring that those rooms were set out. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will have seen some of the revolutions in the other place, including Perspex screens being put into Committee Rooms so that more Members of the other place can get into Committees.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Karen Bradley: I give way to another august member of the Committee, the hon. Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist), and then I will give way to SNP Members.

Liz Twist: Speaking of Bill Committees, does the right hon. Lady recall that some of us took part in a trial running of a Bill Committee, including interventions and a full debate, which worked perfectly well? That might have been another way of ensuring that Government business was able to move forward.

Karen Bradley: The hon. Lady makes an important point. We did not really test or try that hybridity in Bill Committees, which may well have been possible. Given what the House authorities have been able to achieve in other areas, I am sure that if anybody could have achieved it, the House authorities could.

Alan Brown: On Bill Committees, clearly it is a matter of the business managers working to find appropriate space in the House, but has not part of the solution been found by the Government themselves, considering that they now put so many statutory instruments through the main Chamber, including SIs that should never be coming to the Floor of the House? They are actually finding ways to free up space and make a hybrid solution work anyway.

Karen Bradley: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. I would not want to speculate about what goes on between the usual channels—I suspect the usual channels were slightly surprised by some of the things that have taken place today—but I hope, as a former Whip myself, that the usual channels will continue to work, because this place works best when the usual channels are working.

Chris Elmore: rose—

Karen Bradley: I give way to my hon. Friend.

Chris Elmore: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, and will return the compliment, as she is an exemplary Chair of the Committee. May I place on record, as my hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) and for Hove (Peter Kyle) have said, the fact that during the Domestic Abuse Bill Committee they were willing to take part in physical proceedings?  There is an idea that somehow the usual channels were not working and names were put forward, but this is on the record: they were willing to take part in those proceedings. The only concern, which is available, as the right hon. Lady is aware, was about witnesses, and there was an option for having a hybrid-facility fallback to protect victims of domestic abuse. It simply is not correct to say that Members were not willing to engage in Bill Committees, and I know that she agrees.

Karen Bradley: I absolutely agree with that point.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I have been in touch with my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Dame Cheryl Gillan), who is in one of the extremely vulnerable categories. She is watching the debate remotely, getting more and more demoralised about it. She has asked me to plead with the House to pass the motion unamended, because she has not been able to take part in debates since March, and it is likely that she will be unable to take part in debates until next March, which is simply not fair. Let the most vulnerable people take part in debates, then fight the other battles another time.

Karen Bradley: I, too, want my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Dame Cheryl Gillan) and many other clinically extremely vulnerable colleagues to be able to take part in debates, but the amendment does not preclude their doing so. It allows them and others to take part in those debates. I want to see my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron), who secured an urgent question last week, taking part in debates as well. I want as many Members as possible to take part in debates. This has been going on for far too long. About a quarter of Members are currently availing themselves of the ability to participate virtually in scrutiny proceedings: questions, UQs and statements. Not all of them are clinically extremely vulnerable, but they need to be allowed to take part in debates. We will have been going for 12 months by the end of March, and not to have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay in a debate in that time I consider inappropriate and not fair on him. He is working incredibly hard, and he needs to be able to participate.
I should also like to raise the case of our hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant), who has been texting me during the debate and has asked me to mention him. If he were here he would be speaking, but he cannot be here. He would love to take part in this debate down the line. He would love to take part virtually, but he cannot do so—he is not allowed.

Aaron Bell: I thank the Chair of the Procedure Committee, on which I serve, for giving way. She has mentioned Members who cannot be here. May I put on record the case of my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns), who is heavily pregnant and would like to know whether the relevant words, “or equivalent”, in the motion extend to ladies in the third stage of their pregnancy?

Karen Bradley: I thank my hon. Friend, who has just joined the Procedure Committee. I was going to make exactly the same point, because my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns) has  texted me as well. In the third trimester of pregnancy, women are asked to shield, but they are not clinically extremely vulnerable. I know that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is sympathetic to that, and is trying to do all that he can to assist, but if he accepts the amendment, we do not have to have a debate about whether someone in their third trimester is clinically extremely vulnerable—we will just feel able to let them take part.
The capacity of digital services is much improved. We have seen what has happened in the other place. I do not think that my right hon. Friend should worry about allowing our hon. and right hon. Friends to take part in debates down the line, because this is not going to stifle debate—it will enhance and add to it.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Karen Bradley: I see that many Members wish to intervene. I shall give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Paul Holmes) and then the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady).

Paul Holmes: Does my right hon. Friend not accept, to back the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown), that if the motion fails tonight the people she is talking about and whom she wants to involve in the Chamber will not be involved, so it will be the worst of all worlds?

Karen Bradley: Once again, I say to my hon. Friend that the Government could accept the amendment. However, I do not see why the Government would have to accept an amendment on House business, as this is a matter for the House to decide. If the House wants Members who cannot be here for reasons other than that they are clinically extremely vulnerable to participate, why would we not let them? Of course I want to see the motion to go through, but I want to see the amended motion go through.

Patrick Grady: The point that the Chair of the Procedure Committee is making about the amendment and about this being a House matter is very important. It should be a free vote. I am carrying quite a significant number of proxy votes, but I have consulted in advance with the Members for whom I am acting as a proxy, and I know that they all support the amendment. Given how this debate happened so quickly, is she concerned about whether other Members who are carrying substantial numbers of proxy votes have had a chance to consult all those Members individually on their exercise of those in a free vote, because I am sure that the Government are not threatening their Members on a free vote.

Karen Bradley: My hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew) is perhaps the first Deputy Chief Whip to have voted against his own Government and kept his job, so I know that he will put forward this vote in the right way, but my concern is whether hon. and right hon. Members are aware of this debate and know that the vote is coming. I just ask the Government to let our hon. and right hon. Friends be able to take part.

Chris Bryant: I just want to make it absolutely clear that I would love the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Dame Cheryl Gillan) to be able to take part in debates fully. I have spoken to her several times this year and I know how painful she has found this. None of us is seeking to prevent that happening. All of us who have tabled the amendment and support the amendment simply want a few more people to be able to participate in exactly the same way as she is. If the Leader of the House would stand up now and say that he will accept the amendment, we could all go home and get on with more important business.

Karen Bradley: I thank the hon. Gentleman. I urge my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to listen to what is being said and to what was said in the urgent question last week and in the statement that the Backbench Committee graciously gave to my Committee last Thursday. He could be the hero if he were to accept this amendment. It would show compassion and generosity, and it would show his courtesy, because he is one of the most courteous Members of this Parliament, who, in all his time here, has always ensured that Parliament is sovereign—in fact, he has campaigned very hard to make sure that Parliament is sovereign—and that Members of this House are heard, from all Benches.
I thank the many hon. and right hon. Members who responded to the call for evidence from the Procedure Committee on this important matter and expressed a majority view on the exclusion from debates, not just in this place but in Westminster Hall. Let us be clear: the Government motion does not extend to Westminster Hall. The reason for this furore—the reason that we are here—is that my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) was unable to take part in the debate in Westminster Hall on the disease that she is suffering from. Unless the Government are willing to look at extending the virtual proceedings to Westminster Hall, that will still be a problem. The Procedure Committee stands ready to work with the Government to find ways to allow more debates, perhaps more Adjournment debates in this Chamber, so that Members can take part—Members like my hon. Friend. Again, I urge my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House please to think about how this will look to those of our hon. and right hon. Friends who are not here for other reasons.
The hon. Member for Hove (Peter Kyle) made a very important intervention when he said that there is a difference about the situation here. Nobody is asking to not be at work. We are all at work. The idea that Members of Parliament have not been working over the course of the past few months when they have not been able to be here, or we are not in the full Chamber, is ludicrous given the hours that are spent on Zoom calls and Teams meetings, and the many, many pieces of constituent correspondence that we are all dealing with. In those few weeks at the beginning of the lockdown when people had such confusion and there was no certainty, the Government did an enormous amount of good in terms of the financial support and the guidance that was issued, but right at the beginning, everything was unknown.This was, as everyone says, an unprecedented situation.
Members across the House were dealing with constituents who had the most difficult and heart-rending stories. We wanted to do our best for our constituents, and we were doing that from home because Parliament was in recess.  We could not ask questions of Ministers in the way we normally would by being here in the Chamber. Again, I pay tribute to the Government for the amount of access that Ministers made available to Members, to allow us to ask questions on behalf of our constituents. We are all working incredibly hard, whether we are working here, working in our offices in the precincts of the Palace or working at home. Nobody is asking not to work; it is merely that Members who cannot be here for reasons other than being clinically extremely vulnerable, including self-isolating because they have been told to by the Government, should be able to take part in all our proceedings.

Meg Hillier: As the right hon. Lady highlights, people are working very hard, and I pay tribute to members of the Public Accounts Committee, including the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Dame Cheryl Gillan). Two of the Committee’s members are self-isolating, and even on a hard-working Committee such as the Public Accounts Committee, they are two of the hardest working Members. It is of great sadness to me that those Members are unable to contribute to debate and that this issue has been kicked around like a football when it could be so easily resolved. I urge the Leader of the House to allow this amendment and to spare the pain of Members who have been unable to represent their constituents by participating in debates. The issue could be dealt with tonight, and then those excellent Members could contribute fully in the House.

Karen Bradley: The hon. Lady is right. Select Committees, of which we are both Chairs, have conducted their business virtually, with some physical proceedings to take evidence. She and I have both chaired meetings from Committee Rooms, but we have managed, as have all Select Committees, to take evidence, to work and to produce numerous reports on the basis of virtual participation, which includes all Members. Nobody has not been allowed to take part because their situation means that they cannot get a doctor’s note. Every single member of every Committee has been able to play a full part in the Committee. I do not understand why, on a matter of House business, the Government are determined to prevent that from happening.
Members spend years getting elected to this place. People give up their careers, and they lose their families in far too many cases. They do incredible work to get to this place. As an MP, I want to be in this place—I want to be here. There are Members who cannot be here at the moment, but they want to work. They want to have the chance to carry on their work and to be heard.
As I said, this is about the view of the House. I know that my hon. Friend the Deputy Chief Whip would never do this, but if proxy votes were used inappropriately —if a Member’s proxy vote ends up being cast in a Lobby that they would not want it to be cast in because they did not know this debate was coming, or if a Member is not here because they saw the business and were happy to believe that there would not be any votes—it would be a great shame. It will cause resentment, I suspect, if the motion goes through without a proper vote by all Members.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am going to try again. This is a really sensitive matter for those who are extremely vulnerable. Why do we not let this motion go  through tonight—it will fall if it is not passed by 7 o’clock—at least to give those very few Members the chance to participate in our debates? We can have the argument another day about the wider remit, but let us get this motion through tonight. I will be supporting the Government.

Karen Bradley: I will be sitting down shortly. I wanted to ensure that I took interventions because I know that many Members who were not here for the start of the debate will not be able to catch the eye of the Deputy Speaker, or possibly even the Speaker, due to the rules that apply to this debate, which are different from those of other debates with call lists and so on. This was a surprise debate—none of us thought that it was happening —so I wanted to ensure that Members had the chance to speak. I say to my hon. Friend again that I really want to see the motion go through, but I want it to go through amended so that all our hon. and right hon. Friends can take part in the debates. I really do not see why there is a problem with ensuring that my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham can take part in debates, and I have fought like he would not believe to ensure that she can do so, but I also want my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay to take part in debates, because I want to hear from them both on these matters.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I simply remind the House that this motion will fall at 7 o’clock. Let us at least have half a loaf if we cannot get the whole loaf, and enable those very vulnerable people to participate in our debates.

Karen Bradley: As I say, I will sit down shortly, because I want to make sure that the amendment can be moved and that we have time for the vote, but I urge my hon. Friend to consider voting for the amendment, because that will mean that my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham and my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay will be able to vote and speak.

Kevan Jones: There is a simple way to move this on: the Government could accept the amendment tonight. The fact that this debate has been curtailed into less than two hours is not the House’s fault or the Procedure Committee’s fault, because the Committee has asked for a full debate on this and it has been refused by the Leader of the House.

Karen Bradley: The right hon. Gentleman is correct. We asked for this debate during the urgent question last week, and we asked for it again on Thursday. This debate has been sprung on Members, and I feel strongly that we need to look at the House having its say. This is a House matter. The Government have kindly tabled the motion, but it is a matter for the House to decide.
I shall conclude, because I want to ensure that the hon. Member for Rhondda can move and speak to his amendment. I urge the Government to think about how this looks in the eyes of the public when their MP can take part in a question but not take part in a subsequent debate. Yes, they can vote by proxy—we can have a debate about whether the proxy voting system works and whether it is optimal—but all of this is suboptimal. None of this is as good as it should be. Why exclude Members who could take part in debates and make  important contributions simply because of—well, I do not know. I do not know why the Government are refusing to accept this, but we must give the House a proper say, and the Procedure Committee will continue to pursue the issue.

Chris Bryant: I beg to move amendment (a) in line 5:
Leave out from “Members” to “to” in line 8 and insert “with a public health reason relating to the pandemic”.
Welcome to the Chair, Mr Speaker. It is good to see you in your rightful place. I suspect that I am not going to please everyone, because I have just had an email from a Philip Toler, who says: “Why do you constantly stand up in Parliament?” [Interruption.] Oh, hang on, I seem to have united the House with that. He goes on: “Why do you not express your appreciation of the hard-working Prime Minister and all his Ministers? They are only trying their best. The Government was voted in by 95% of the population and you should therefore show some respect.” [Interruption.] Sometimes the vote in the Rhondda is a bit like that, but I do not think it is quite the same. That sounds a bit like a Trump version of how elections are run.
It is a terrible shame that this has become such a scratchy debate. There is no need for that, in all honesty, because there is a very simple issue at hand: the Government think one thing and quite a lot of Members of the House think a different thing, and we should be able to resolve that without all shouting and screaming at one another. I regret the way that we have ended up with the debate today, because many of us have repeatedly said to the Government, to the Whips and to the Leader of the House that the simplest way of having a proper debate on this is for the Government to timetable a chunk of time for a debate with a vote at the end of it, so that the House can decide. Unfortunately, that is not what the Government decided to do. They decided to table the motion on nod or nothing, without consulting with the Opposition Whips beforehand. Nod or nothing is there for consensual motions. The whole point of nod or nothing is that if the whole of the House does not agree then it does not go through. It is not nodded through, so we get nothing. I must say that when the Leader of the House made his response to the urgent question more than a week ago now, I had the impression that the motion he was going to table was one that the whole of the House would have been able to live with. Unfortunately, that is not what happened. What happened was that we had the nod or nothing games on Wednesday night and then again on Thursday. We have had a version of them again today.
Today has been the oddest of the lot, because the Government Whips put a whole load of speakers into lots of debates earlier on in the day. The Leader of the House, as I said earlier, told my Select Committee, the Committee on Standards, this morning that he had allocated time for two very important debates we would have tonight on bullying in the House of Commons. He said that we were going to have those debates and then he did not move the motions for them. I think it is a shame that we are debating this motion, rather than dealing with bullying in the Palace of Westminster. It has taken far too long to try to solve some of those  issues. Members were asking earlier, “What will voters think watching this debate?” They will think, “Why haven’t you sorted out the bullying issues in Parliament?” They will not be worrying so much about this debate.
It is a shame we have got to where we are now. I say again that the easiest thing in the world for the Government to do is table a motion on the Order Paper in the normal way and to allow a chunk of time for it to be debated, so that all hon. Members can be notified that the motion is be happening at such-and-such a time and they can take their own view.

Alistair Carmichael: It appears to me that the House is now in a wholly unsatisfactory position. We stand to have a Division soon in relation to House business, which, by convention, is not normally whipped, and many Members who are not here will have given their proxies to their own party Whips. It is difficult to see how any view expressed by the House at 7 o’clock will be genuinely representative of the views of all the House.

Chris Bryant: I will come on to that point later, but there is a prior point which is really important. It is vital to the way we do our business as a Parliament that we have some business which is not subject to the Whip. Obviously, there are conscience clauses. One could argue that every single vote we ever cast in Parliament is a conscience clause, but there are specific matters that have historically been treated in the House as conscience clauses, such as abortion, gay marriage and so on. Traditionally, there has been a very strong view that when it comes to how the House does its own business and orders things, it is not a matter for the Whips.
Now, some of my best friends are Whips. Some of my very best friends are Whips. [Interruption.] Yes, all right, some of my next-door neighbours are Whips. They play an absolutely vital role in enabling the business of the House to proceed. They are therefore, in the main, for the greater convenience of the House. However, there is some business that we should just decide, because in our own conscience, out of our own thinking, that is what we have decided. I think that this matter, in the middle of a pandemic, really should be a matter where our own personal decision is the only thing that counts. It seems odd to me that we have ended up in a situation where a Government Whip can have more than 240 proxy votes—the Opposition Whip, too—yet lots and lots of people cannot take part in the debate. If anything, it should be the other way around.
I want to come specifically to the Government motion and why I have a problem with it, as it is worded. First of all, it says we must be
“certified by a medical practitioner”.
Frankly, I think medical practitioners have better things to do at the moment than to be signing people off as “clinically extremely vulnerable”. Secondly, the idea that we should have to present some kind of certificate—I do not know in what form—presumably to you, Mr Speaker, to prove that somebody has been certified as clinical extremely vulnerable by a medical practitioner, puts you in an invidious position, because you have then to decide. Effectively, you become the doctor of the House, deciding whether people are or are not clinically extremely vulnerable. I do not have any problem with all those people who are clinically extremely vulnerable  taking part in debates. I think they should have been allowed to do so for some time already. I am not upset about saying that I have had several letters from the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care telling me that I should be shielding—I am not sure whether this is his way of trying to prevent me from taking part in debates. He is not directly addressing this to me—as far as he knows, it has gone out to 300,000 people, or whatever —but the truth is that my doctor says that I am not clinically extremely vulnerable and there is no need for me to shield, not least because I completed my treatment for my cancer back in February. I just think that this is an inappropriate way of us dealing with Members.
The second point is that there are many people who have responsibilities for other people in their households for all sorts of different reasons, as many and as various as the stars in the sky, no doubt. I simply think that it is invidious, therefore, to draw the line in one particular place. I say to the hon. Member for The Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown)—he knows I have enormous respect for him—that, on this occasion, I just think that it would be perfectly simple for him to vote for the amendment and then we would be able to get both the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Dame Cheryl Gillan) and the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) able to participate in debates.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am grateful to the hon. Member, who I also have a lot of respect for. I say to him gently again that if he withdrew his amendment tonight and let the motion go through as the Government have tabled it, at least the most clinically extremely vulnerable would be able to participate—they have not been able to participate since March—and then we could have his battle with the Government on another day. We have had two hours to debate this subject; it will fall at 7 o’clock.

Chris Bryant: I sympathise with the argument. Indeed, the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham has expressed that argument to me. The problem is that the only people who have responsibility for the way we do our business this evening are the Government. The only people who can grant us time to have a row on another day and allow other people are the Government. So far, what we have seen over the last two weeks is that they are passionately, adamantinely opposed to allowing a further extension of people, so the only moment at which we can possibly insist is this moment.
I have heard the argument, “Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good”—I have heard it so many times in my life and sometimes I have even made it myself. I made it myself, oddly, on the issue of gay marriage, because I said to Members in my party, “Let’s just go with having civil partnerships, because maybe the country won’t wear gay marriage.” Lots of people, quite rightly, metaphorically slapped me in the face and said, “You’re an idiot. You simply don’t know where history is going.” So I say to hon. Members tonight: the perfect is within your grasp. Vote for the amendment and the whole motion will go through as amended, and we will be happy. The Government could say now, having heard so many Conservative colleagues and others in the House say that they would like to take part in debates, that they are going to accept the amendment.

Fleur Anderson: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Chris Bryant: If my hon. Friend will allow me, I just want to deal with the specific issue of the Government’s argument.
Some Members rightly say, “MPs shouldn’t treat themselves any differently from the rest of the country.” I 100%, wholeheartedly agree. All too often, we adopt an exceptionalist position for Parliament, which I think our voters and our constituents do not understand or accept, but I think that on this particular issue, the Government have simply got it wrong and do not understand their own rules.
The Leader of the House said last week that the rule in the country was, if you can, go to work. That is not the Government’s advice. It was not last week and it is not this week. As the Prime Minister categorically said yesterday, the Government’s rule says specifically:
“To help contain the virus, everyone who can work effectively from home should do so.”
Everyone who can do so should do so. The Prime Minister reiterated yesterday that when the present lockdown in England is completed, even in tier 1, the rule will be work from home if you can. In addition, the Government rules specify—this is in relation to employers, so this is the responsibility of the whole House:
“COVID-19 is a public health emergency. Everyone needs to assess and manage the risks of COVID-19, and in particular businesses should consider the risks to their workers and visitors. As an employer, you also have a legal responsibility to protect workers and others from risk to their health and safety. This means you need to think about the risks they face and do everything reasonably practicable to minimise them”.
The House can do something “reasonably practicable”, and that is to allow a significant number of Members to take part in debates remotely, because they are clinically extremely vulnerable. An additional number, which I believe to be a smaller one, could take part remotely for a public health reason in their own family or community.
I will make another point to the Government. I have felt a sense of deep frustration all year. I sometimes worry that the Government think that they are a Government of England, not a Government of the United Kingdom. I will lose some people in the Opposition now, but I am a passionate Unionist. I want the Union to hold together. As a Welsh MP, it has constantly been difficult this year to explain differences between sets of arrangements in Wales, Scotland, England and all the rest of it. Broadcasters have been particularly bad at explaining them, but the truth is that on this specific issue of whether people should work from home, the rules vary at different points in Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

Patrick Grady: rose—

Chris Bryant: I will give way—as long as the hon. Gentleman promises that he will be a Unionist.

Patrick Grady: The point is exactly as the hon. Gentleman makes it, because the Government continue to put a rocket up the case for independence by refusing to accommodate the requirements of all Members of Parliament for Scotland. We are specifically exempt from legislation that now prevents people from Scotland from travelling to England. We have to be happy to be specifically exempt from that because the Leader of the House is intransigent.

Chris Bryant: Obviously I do not go quite as far as that, but when we had the firebreak in Wales—the Labour Government in Wales have dealt with all of this much better, delivering a clearer message all the time, but that is by the by—some of my constituents said to me strongly that they did not want me to come to Parliament, because they thought it would be inappropriate for me to do so as they were not allowed to travel. I make no judgment—some MPs felt they had to come, some felt that they did not, and all the rest of it—but the truth of the matter is that there are different rules in different parts of the country, and there will be different rules in different parts of England in the forthcoming weeks. It would seem to make far more sense, on an equality basis, to allow everyone to participate on an equal basis.
The Leader of the House denies this—I am sorry to be so obsessed with the Leader of the House, but I was looking forward to a long speech and we have barely had a word from him today, which is a terrible disappointment to us all—but on occasion he has intimated that we cannot really do our job as an MP unless we are here. My experience is that, of all my 19 years as a Member, this has been the toughest year as an MP in terms of the understandable demand from constituents. Most arrives by email, not from people physically coming through the door—several Members have mentioned that they have not held surgeries in person, but have been doing them online. On social media, Facebook in particular, I have been dealing with many thousands of cases every week. Some questions are not right—such as, “Is Lidl open?”, or, “How much are nappies in Sainsbury’s?”, neither of which I knew the answer to, but in a way, it has been a good thing for Parliament that many MPs have had engagement with their constituents that they never had in the previous year.
It is tough, because there is no point going on holiday this year as an MP, because frankly, at all hours of the day, we have been dealing endlessly with requests from constituents. A lot of the job we can do perfectly well from our living room, back study, outhouse or stable, depending on how grand or ungrand the house is.

Kevan Jones: An example of that was this weekend. The annual NATO Parliamentary Assembly took place, involving individual parliamentarians from NATO countries, including the United States and all across Europe. It was all done virtually, and I was even chairing meetings on Saturday afternoon.

Chris Bryant: The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and all sorts of organisations have been doing this perfectly well, fully engaging all their members and enabling them to take part. Members might say that it is more difficult for people to travel, but sometimes some Members in the House forget that the travel is as risky as the business of actually physically being in Parliament. Mr Speaker, you and all the staff in the building have done a phenomenal job in making this place as covid-secure as possible.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Can you advise the House that, if this debate goes up to 7 o’clock, the motion will fall? Would it therefore not be prudent of the House to cease this debate now so that at least we can have a vote and thus protect those Members who are extremely clinically vulnerable?

Lindsay Hoyle: I think everybody in here knows exactly what the outcome is of what is going on. I do not think that we need to reiterate the obvious.

Chris Bryant: I am grateful for your guidance, Mr Speaker, but let me make the point clear. I am moving the amendment in the names of the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay and myself.
It is worth bearing in mind what Members are not able to take part in. I have heard very moving and important speeches by Conservative Members, saying that this year has seen a phenomenal suspension of liberty in this country—extraordinary. The Coronavirus Act 2020 has taken power away from individuals to live their lives as they want more than any other piece of legislation in our history. We subscribed to that because we believed that it was necessary. The Government insisted that they should require only a single vote every six months on a 90-minute debate, but the Members whom we are talking about are not able to take part in those 90-minute debates—to be honest, not many other people are able to take part in those 90-minute debates either.
If we look at the secondary legislation, we will see that, during this year, there have been 297 coronavirus statutory instruments, using powers in 106 Acts of Parliament. Why should none of the Members whom we are talking about be able to take part in any of that secondary legislation when it is depriving people of their liberty? More importantly, it is not about the Member; it is about the community that they represent—their constituency. Why should they be barred, for instance, from expressing a view about the 10 o’clock curfew in pubs, or whether their constituency should be in tier 1, tier 2 or tier 3? They are not able to take part in ten-minute rule Bills. They are not able to make points of order, which must be a terribly depressing thing for all of them—how can you live without making points of order? Ironically enough, they are able to table amendments, but they are not able then to speak to them. That is the irony of where we are at tonight. The hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay can table an amendment, but he is not able to take part in this debate because of the way that things have been structured.
I say to all hon. Members, first of all, I do not buy this argument about the perfect being the enemy of the good. Earlier today, I understand that the Government Whips tried to strong-arm the Opposition, saying, “Well, you’ll never get what you want. We’ll pull the motion.” But the Leader of the House said that he would enable the House to resolve this. The proper way to resolve this is to have a proper motion on the Order Paper when all Members know that the debate is coming and we can consider the thing properly.
Secondly, I believe that all MPs are equal—the good, the bad, the ugly. All of them are equal. It is a really important principle.

Kevan Jones: Name the ugly.

Chris Bryant: Especially the ugly, yes.

Kevan Jones: No, name the ugly.

Chris Bryant: Oh. Anyway, the point is that it is such a historic principle that every MP is treated equally that it is a terrible shame that we have abandoned it this year just because there is a pandemic. I do not believe that  House business should ever be whipped. I think it is wholly inappropriate to do that, and I think that there has been a tendency in the past year for the Whips to interfere. Sorry, I have just seen my Chief Whip—everything that he has done has been absolutely perfect. On a serious note, I just think that more of our business should be done without the Whips’ engagement, because sometimes that would mean that it was less cantankerous.
I especially object to the idea that large numbers of proxies should be used in a vote, unless the person who is delivering those proxies has asked each and every individual Member—every single one—how they intended to vote. Let me just say to Members who would even consider the idea of voting against the amendment, which I guess is the argument that many of them are advancing—
Debate interrupted (Standing Order No. 9(3)).

Jacob Rees-Mogg: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Tomorrow’s business will now include a motion to approve a money resolution relating to the Prisons (Substance Testing) Bill, followed by a motion relating to the appointment of members to the Independent Expert Panel, followed by a motion relating to the Committee on Standards’ 11th report of Session 2019-21. These were the motions that were not brought forward today to allow two hours for the very important debate that has sadly just expired.

Lindsay Hoyle: Would the shadow Leader of the House like to respond?

Valerie Vaz: indicated dissent.

Kevan Jones: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker.

Lindsay Hoyle: I do not really want to get into what we have already discussed. I want to suspend the House so  that we can move on. It would be better if we did not have another point of order because I am not going to open up or extend the debate, but if it is very relevant, I will hear it.

Kevan Jones: The Leader of the House has made time tomorrow for things he delayed today. He could make time for this debate to be extended and completed tomorrow.

Lindsay Hoyle: I think we have—[Interruption.] Order. Let us calm down.
In order to allow the safe exit of hon. Members participating in this item of business and the safe arrival of those participating in the next, I am going to suspend the House for three minutes.
Sitting suspended.

Business without Debate

Delegated Legislation

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Exiting the European Union (Customs)

That the draft Customs Safety, Security and Economic Operators Registration and Identification (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020, which were laid before this House on 21 October, be approved.—(James Morris.)
Question agreed to.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Exiting the European Union  (Arms and Ammunition)

That the draft Law Enforcement and Security (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020, which were laid before this House on 22 October, be approved.—(James Morris.)
Question agreed to.

HMP Frankland: Covid-19

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(James Morris.)

Mary Foy: I thank Mr Speaker for granting this important Adjournment debate and I am grateful to the Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, the hon. and learned Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Lucy Frazer), for her call this morning in advance of this debate.
When society was shut down in March, millions of workers were told to work from the safety of their home to protect them from the virus. However, for the prison officers and staff at HMP Frankland and the rest of our nation’s prisons, that was obviously not possible. Instead, they went into work because it was crucial that prisons remained operational in order to protect the welfare of prisoners and the broader public. In doing so, prison staff, like all frontline key workers, unquestionably put their health at risk, and their bravery in doing their job should be commended.

Liz Twist: Does my hon. Friend agree not only that prison officers are to be commended for their dedication but that it is incumbent on their employers to ensure that the risks of covid-19, especially for those in the vulnerable group, are properly assessed?

Mary Foy: That is of course extremely important; it is one of the issues that I shall outline in this debate.
The selflessness of prison staff and their commitment to their work brings me to the purpose of this debate. In recent weeks, HMP Frankland has experienced an alarming rise in the number of covid-19 infections. At the peak of the outbreak, around 66 prisoners out of a prison population of 850 were confirmed as covid-19 positive, meaning that around 8% of prisoners were infected. In addition, at the peak around 220 staff were off work, with 73 operational staff covid-19 positive.

Kevan Jones: I congratulate my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour on securing this debate. I have a lot of constituents who work in Durham, Low Newton and Frankland prisons, and I pay tribute to the hard work they have done. Does my hon. Friend agree that this is not just about the operational staff? I have had a few cases in which the Prison Service has taken quite a rigid attitude towards those who are caring for vulnerable people at home and not been flexible in its approach to some of those cases.

Mary Foy: My right hon. Friend is correct. My discussions with the prison governor have shown how dedicated the prison is not just to the operational staff but all the staff and prisoners and the wider prison community.
In total, given the covid cases and the numbers isolating, more than 20% of all staff employed by the prison were off work at the same time. It is clear that the number of infections at Frankland reached an alarming level, especially given what we know about the ease and speed with which the virus spreads. It is therefore not surprising that both Public Health England and the wider prison outbreak control team recommended that HMP Frankland  moved from stage 4 restrictions to the most severe stage 5 restrictions, in what would have been, in effect, a complete lockdown of the prison.
The recommendation was supported by the Prison Officers Association, which is extremely concerned for the welfare of prison staff and prisoners, because of the real fear that the virus was out of control in the prison. However, even though there was strong support for stage 5 restrictions from Public Health England, the outbreak control team and the POA, the gold command at HMP Frankland rejected the recommendation and instead reduced the number of prisoners allowed to exercise at any one time and the frequency of exercise; mandated mask wearing; and increased testing. This compromise was then accepted by the outbreak control team.
I recognise the pressures that the prison leadership is under, as well as the need to balance staff and prisoner safety with prisoners’ human rights, but I am concerned that the gold command seemingly rejected the initial advice of public health professionals. Does the Minister agree that local committee concerns should not be overruled by gold commands without being discussed at a national level first, especially when supported by Public Health England?
At HMP Frankland, I am happy to say that there is an extremely open and productive relationship between the Prison Officers Association and the prison’s leadership, and that this includes daily meetings and the sharing of Public Health England advice to the outbreak control team with POA representatives. However, as I understand it, while Frankland follows best practice on this, prison governors are under no obligation to share advice and recommendations with the POA. As the union is the representative of staff within prisons, this is clearly not right. So does the Minister agree that gold commands should discuss and divulge all Public Health England advice to and with the Prison Officers Association as the representatives of prison staff?
The infection levels among staff at HMP Frankland posed two serious problems. The first is with regards to staffing levels as a result of covid-19-related absences. It is no exaggeration to say that the staffing cover was paper thin due to these absences. HMP Frankland is a high-security prison, home to some of the most dangerous prisoners in the country. In such an institution, under-staffing poses an unacceptable risk to staff at work, to the protections offered to prisoners and to the general running of the facility. While staffing shortages have not, at this stage, reached a dangerous level at Frankland, I think we can all agree that genuine threats to staffing levels at any prison must always be taken seriously.
The second issue is the threat the virus poses to the health of staff and prisoners. I am aware that Frankland is a secure environment in which there are already restrictions on prisoners’ activities and movement, which can help slow down the spread of the virus. I also appreciate that additional measures were introduced by gold command in an effort to avoid a move from stage 4 restrictions to stage 5. It is positive news that these measures appear to have had some success, with the number of staff off due to covid-19 dropping from 220 to 112, while the number of prisoners infected or isolating has dropped significantly. This is a welcome improvement, albeit one that will need to be monitored closely as restrictions are eased in wider society.
However, although the decisions to increase stage 4 restrictions in order to avoid stage 5 by HMP Frankland gold command may have lowered the numbers of staff and prisoners who have had to isolate, it is arguable that a short-term move to stage 5 would have been a lower risk and would have better protected those in the prison, especially as this was the initial advice of the outbreak control team. I know that even temporary stage 5 restrictions would have been exceptionally tough for prisoners, especially for their mental health. However, I want to be clear that the staff at Frankland are concerned about more than just their own welfare and that of their families; they are also concerned about prisoner safety. No prison officer wants a total lockdown unless it was completely necessary, as they know the impact that this would have upon prisoners. Yet, while the effects of a lockdown would have been harsh, it was arguably necessary to best keep prisoners safe from covid.
I also recognise the argument and understand the concerns that stage 5 restrictions could lead to prisoner dissent at a level that would pose a different sort of threat to staff. However, there are a number of reasons why I do not believe that this occasion on its own was an adequate reason to avoid a stage 5 lockdown due to covid-19. First, there is the fact that many prisoners are just as afraid of the risk of infection as staff are, and that they would understand the need for stage 5 restrictions if it was needed to protect them from a major covid-19 outbreak.
Secondly, there is the fact that, under stage 4 restrictions, any prisoner who must isolate as a result of possible covid-19 exposure is losing out on freedoms that other prisoners have, through no fault of their own. As a result of this, there is potentially an incentive for prisoners to not report covid-19 symptoms, so that they do not lose their access to exercise, showers and phone calls. If every prisoner is locked down under the same restrictions for a short period to combat a major infection spike, that potential is reduced.
Finally, there is the argument that a total lockdown could inspire some prisoners to act disruptively, putting the physical safety of staff at risk in a different way. While I know that there will always be a balance between managing the risk of prisoner disruption with the threat from the virus, it is vital that prisoner behaviour does not dictate the decisions taken to protect prisoners’ welfare, as well as the health and safety of staff. Does the Minister agree that the health and safety of staff should not be ignored in favour of prisoner appeasement?
It also strikes me that many of the negative implications of stage 5 restrictions could be resolved if prisoner welfare in general was improved. An example of that at HMP Frankland is the lack of telephone access in cells in comparison with other prisons. Does the Minister agree that telephones in cells would mitigate some of the impact of covid-19 restrictions on prisoners? Will she update the House on when HMP Frankland can expect to have such facilities?
The final issue I would like to raise is the treatment of prisoners in relation to wider society. While I understand that the leadership at Frankland took the decision to prohibit the use of gym equipment, I have also heard that that is not the case in all prisons in England. At a time when gyms have been closed nationwide due to the Government’s position that they are not safe to be   open, it seems bizarre that gym facilities at some prisons have remained open. Will the Minister confirm that she believes that coronavirus restrictions in prisons should mirror those in wider society?
I want to praise the dialogue and the relationship between the governors at HMP Frankland and the POA representatives at the prison. They might not agree on every issue, but the strength of their working relationship has been stressed to me. In my opinion, it offers a great example to other institutions and employers across the country.
While the situation at Frankland is, thankfully, improving, it is a reminder that no matter how well an institution responds to covid-19, there is always room for improvement and lessons to be learned. Above all, we must recognise that there is a human element to these situations and that we cannot just look at numbers alone, alarming as they were. Prison officers work in a job where social distancing is often impossible and where the people they work with are not always compliant. That places an incredible level of stress on staff.
The prison staff and many of the prisoners at Frankland are afraid of the virus, as they are at every prison. Just like everyone else, they fear getting ill and the staff are scared of bringing the virus home to their families and to their communities. No one should have to work or live in an environment that is not safe. While prisons must stay open, no matter the circumstances, the way in which they operate can be altered to keep people safe and to mitigate the risks to staff and prisoners.
I am grateful to the Minister for her time and to right hon. and hon. Members for their interventions. I hope that important lessons can be learned from this situation.

Lucy Frazer: I thank the hon. Member for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy) for securing this important debate this evening. As she started her remarks, she said that staff have done so much on the frontline in our prisons across the country. I start by paying tribute to that work and recognising the important work that they have done in our prisons, together with PHE and the NHS. They are all working in extremely challenging circumstances.
I will start by explaining the general approach that we are taking in prisons to manage covid and then address the specific situation in Frankland against that background. I do that because it is important to understand the context before considering the particular measures taken in a particular prison.
From the outset of the pandemic, the safety of our staff and those in our care has been paramount. We have at all times been conscious of the potential for the virus to spread quickly in prisons, which are closed environments, which could lead to significant deaths. Indeed, in March, at the beginning of the outbreak, PHE advised us that we could expect 2,500 to 3,500 deaths in our prisons if we took no action.
When the first wave hit, we took decisive action early and changed how we delivered our services. We implemented significant restrictions in prisons to support social distancing, reduce physical contact between staff and prisoners and minimise movement between prisons. We stopped social visits and transfers.
To protect the most vulnerable, we quickly implemented our compartmentalisation strategy, which quarantines new arrivals, isolates the sick and shields the vulnerable. We brought in mitigations to cover staff absences and provided extra support to prisoners facing restricted regimes as well as those being released from custody during this challenging time.
We also recognised that the lockdown had an effect on the mental health of those in our care who were subject to the restricted regimes. We thought about ways in which we could continue to allow them to have contact with their family. We rapidly deployed video calling into 50 prisons within weeks. That helped maintain family contact for prisoners when face-to-face visits were not possible.
That robust response by Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service, working extremely closely with PHE, meant that we limited the number of deaths in custody. Sadly, 24 prisoners died of covid-related causes during the first wave. Although that is considerably less than the thousands of deaths that PHE initially modelled back in March, it does not detract from the loss experienced by the families of those individuals who passed away. I offer my sincere condolences to their loved ones.
In the 12 months to September 2020, 176 prisoners died of natural causes, including covid. That is only six more than in the previous 12 months. Each life lost is a tragedy and that is why we are doing everything to manage potential outbreaks of the virus across the prison estate in the second wave. However, we must also recognise that, given the length of time since the virus began, we now need to allow prisoners more flexibility in their regimes.
We recognise that the burden of covid-19 goes beyond the risk of infection. We are alive to the risk that anxieties about covid-19 and the regime restrictions required for infection control may exacerbate prisoners’ mental health needs. We take that extremely seriously.
We are now thankfully better prepared than we were in March to respond to the challenge and therefore some flexibility in regime is now possible. We are continuing with all the measures we put in place in March, but in addition, we have more effective measures from wave one. For example, we now have greater capacity to test prisoners and staff for the virus. We are implementing the weekly testing of staff and that of prisoners on reception and transfer. That is an essential tool to help identify outbreaks early, reduce transmission and bring outbreaks under control as swiftly as possible.
Our aim is to balance the risk of infection while managing prisoners’ wellbeing. To do that, we need to run the fullest regimes possible consistent with infection control. That is why we have given our governors the flexibility to react to the local situation, acting on PHE advice. We published our national framework in June. That sets out how we will take decisions about restrictions in prisons. It allows prisons to move between different stages of regime delivery according to their local circumstances.
We eased restrictions in prisons over the summer, but we knew that in some cases we would need to reimpose them temporarily as the risk changed or as part of our response to outbreaks. Although our interventions reduced  the likelihood and impact of covid-19 spreading in custody, we realise that we cannot reduce that risk to zero. Prisons cannot and should not be cut off from the community. If the number of cases in the community rises, the likelihood of an outbreak in the local prison will also inevitably rise. We are therefore ready to intervene quickly in response to suspected or confirmed cases among staff and prisoners, and to provide further support. Our success in closing outbreaks in prisons in both the first wave and the second wave shows that our approach is effective.
Having outlined our national response, I would like to turn to the situation at HMP Frankland. I very much welcome the conversation I had with the hon. Member for City of Durham earlier today to understand the concerns that she raised. I have also had an opportunity to speak to the governor at Frankland. I thank him and his staff, and all those working in prisons, for all their efforts in this challenging period.
On 13 October, an outbreak was declared at the prison after members of staff developed symptoms and tested positive for covid-19. As the hon. Member mentioned, Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service, PHE and the NHS took immediate action and a multi-agency outbreak control team was stood up to manage the response. In response to that, affected areas of the prison were quarantined, contact within the prison was reduced to a minimum and social visits were suspended. Cleaning practices across the prison were enhanced and all staff and prisoners are now wearing face coverings.
A mobile testing unit was deployed to the site and contact tracing carried out to identify close contacts needing to isolate. That mobile testing has now been replaced by regular on-site testing within the prison itself. Staff are being deployed in groups to assigned wings of the prison to minimise the chance of cross-infection. Prisoners are grouped in bubbles for access to essential services such as showers, phones and medication.
As I set out earlier, we have planned for outbreaks such as the one in Frankland. Although prisons are, by their nature, complex and high-risk settings for covid, I have every confidence in the range of measures that we have in place to contain outbreaks. The governor of the prison has told me that the measures he is taking are having an impact, but of course we will continue to monitor the situation closely.
I would like to respond to some of the particular concerns that the hon. Member raised. She mentioned that the regime should go to level 5. Frankland is currently operating at the most restrictive measure within the framework that is reasonable in the circumstances. We cannot take away basic dignity—basic decency—for the men. It would be difficult to take away a shower and some time in the open air. Indeed, as the governor said to me earlier today, if we did so, we would not only put the mental health of the men at risk, but we would heighten tension in the prison and put our staff at risk.
The hon. Member suggested that the POA and PHE support a different regime. I understand that PHE and the governor have agreed on a regime that both minimises the risk of infection and is operationally deliverable, and that continues to protect staff and prisoners from mental ill effects in the manner that I previously described.
I, too, would like to thank the POA for its constructive approach. At national level, throughout this crisis, HMPPS has worked very closely with the POA, and I thank it for all its constructive work in this period. As the hon. Member mentioned, there has been a meeting locally at HMP Frankland every morning with the POA to discuss management of the prison, and relations with the POA locally are good. I understand from the governor that the local POA did not raise any concerns about the management of covid at the prison.
The hon. Member raised the issue of staffing. She is absolutely right to highlight that there are staff absences at the prison. I have been reassured that the staff complement is sufficient, given the restrictive regime. As a high security prison, the staffing is higher than at other prisons. Of course, with a restricted regime it is also possible to operate with a lower number of staff. We keep all those measures under consideration, and   have contingency measures in place across the country to ensure that additional staff and support can be provided where we have low staff complement.
The right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) mentioned the Prison Service’s approach to those who are shielding or who might have other issues. If there are any particular instances, I would be happy to take them up; it is very important that we look after our staff across the estate. There was also a question about in-cell telephony. We have installed that over the last 18 months in 48,000 cells. Frankland is on the programme, with the aim to roll out for 2021-22, subject to funding.
We will continue to act based on public health advice to protect our staff, prisoners and the NHS over the winter.
Question put and agreed to.
House adjourned.